Why did you go Tech, or not?

[VooDooGasMan]

I dabble in and out of tech from what tech is in this thread, decompression diving ok tec, wreck penetration ok tec, cave diving ok tec, bounce dive no deco no tec, dive helium deco or no deco ok tec. Spearfishing ok tec and no tec, photo&video ok tec and no tec.

To me it has always just when breathing any thing else than 21%.

 

[RonFrank]

The diving world defines anything beyond 130' as 'Technical Diving'. In addition overhead environments regardless of depth are also considered Technical (wreck penetration, caves) if there is no immediate access to the surface. This is not my opinion, this is how things are CURRENTLY defined by the organizations that try and set standards.

We can get as Zen as one likes and discuss what divers did in the 50's/60's, but we live in 2011, not in times past. Things have changed quite a bit even since the 70's and 80's. If you feel that depths greater than 130' are arbitrary and equipment like adequate air (doubles, or in excess of 80psi) is optional, that is your opinion. It's certainly not one recognized by any diving organization I am aware of. I guess there are some different rules in other parts of the world that I am unfamiliar with, but for such a global sport it's surprising how standardized things are.

I believe most divers draw hard lines when it comes to depth limits and defining recreational diving. That IMO is a good thing. It's not surprising that folks more comfortable with diving beyond rec voice their experience. It's interesting even if I am no stranger to that crowd.

I am enjoying this thread!

 

[Thalassamania]

The diving world defines anything beyond 130' as 'Technical Diving'. In addition overhead environments regardless of depth are also considered Technical (wreck penetration, caves) if there is no immediate access to the surface. This is not my opinion, this is how things are CURRENTLY defined by the organizations that try and set standards.

We can get as Zen as one likes and discuss what divers did in the 50's/60's, but we live in 2011, not in times past. Things have changed quite a bit even since the 70's and 80's. If you feel that depths greater than 130' are arbitrary and equipment like adequate air (doubles, or in excess of 80psi) is optional, that is your opinion. It's certainly not one recognized by any diving organization I am aware of. I guess there are some different rules in other parts of the world that I am unfamiliar with, but for such a global sport it's surprising how standardized things are.

I believe most divers draw hard lines when it comes to depth limits and defining recreational diving. That IMO is a good thing. It's not surprising that folks more comfortable with diving beyond rec voice their experience. It's interesting even if I am no stranger to that crowd.

I am enjoying this thread!

Once again I must, as one present at the coining of the term "technical diving," point out the incredible hubris of a "diving world" that sees fit to redefine terms created by others, for their own convenience, but I guess if PADI can redefine "mastery," then the "diving world" can redefine "technical diving" to cover something that the term was never intended to encompass: no-decompression diving below 130 feet.

I recommend an "awareness check," since there are any number of organizations, here in the good old US of A, that I am aware of, that permit diving below 130 feet with non-technical diving equipment, (e.g., single tank, etc.).

 

[mathauck0814]

Are there not organizations (CMAS I believe is one) that certify recreational NDL divers to deeper than 130'? I don't think depth alone is enough to dictate a "technical dive". Depth + Bottom time dictate gas requirements, which necessitate a certain equipment configuration; decompression is a symptom of bottom time. "Tech diving" procedures are a response to the decompression requirement. I guess I don't view it as a doctrine so much as it's a set of procedures that become increasingly more necessary as your depth and bottom time increase the risk and requirements to getting out of the water alive...

 

[gsk3]

Are there not organizations (CMAS I believe is one) that certify recreational NDL divers to deeper than 130'?

CMAS avoids "confusing labels" like "Advanced Open Water" and, presumably, "technical." That does not mean in any way that a CMAS 3* is equivalent to a PADI/NAUI/whatever AOW diver...

Here are details on the 2* course (try Google Translate):
Plongeur 2 * - Ecodivers Koh Chang

You'll note that:
* Until 2*, you aren't really expected to dive without a divemaster-equivalent.
* At 2* you're still limited to 20 meters (66 feet). This is already a significantly higher amount of training than most AOW students have, and yet it's a lower depth limit (and they really mean limit, unlike the OW/AOW agencies which generally state dive within your experience).

Here's a handy conversion chart:
Equivalent Diving Qualifications and Bodies

Note that a CMAS 1* is equivalent to AOW, a 2* is equivalent to rescue + dive master (although this is overstating the point a bit; they're allowed to lead limited dives), and a 3* has no real equivalent in the recreational curriculum (because it's basically moderate technical training).

I'm not a huge huge fan of the CMAS system, but comparing it to the more common recreational curricula is not particularly relevant.

 

[Doc Harry]

Tech diving is not limited to the realm deeper than 130 feet. All but one of my technical dives has been at depths between 30 and 100 feet.

 

[Jaydubya]

I did it because "technical" methods allowed me to do the dives I wanted to do. Nothing more, nothing less. The life was on the wrecks and the wrecks were at the edge of "recreational limits" with bottom times way too short. The transition was a gradual process. First came manadatory stops, then gas switches, hard overheads, cave diving so I could dive during the off season led to penetration dives more than a thousand of feet from daylight. All of this is beyond recreational, but it wasn't until trimix, cutting custom tables, and having to follow a run time schedule that I really considered that I was doing "technical" dives.

 

[FinnMom]

I trained under the CMAS system. Our course literature states that
CMAS* has a recommended max 18m, CMAS** recommended max 30m, CMAS*** recommended max 40m.
No one ever told me two 1-star divers can't dive alone together. Thinking of the max. 6-12m quarries we frequently dive and how lots of 1-star divers have 100+ dives that idea seems plain silly.

The max recommended depth numbers seem to vary somewhat at least from one country to another, very possibly from one business to another.

 

[shoredivr]

Tech appealed to me for the opportunity to dive wrecks like these, a little deeper and deco needed to enjoy them. History preserved in cold water.

Dunderberg

Rec Tec Dive Charters Photo Gallery - Dunderberg

Forest City
Diver's Den

Roy A. Jodrey

Mad Dog 2001 Jodrey I



Need more training to get here, examples of goals for 2012-15.

Two unnamed as of yet wrecks off Picton Ontario
Picton_Tech


Cornelia B. Windiate
Windiate

Gunilda
The Gunilda wreck in Lake Superior - Photo Gallery

 

[Sas]

I like caves. I find it easier diving in caves than a lot of the recreational dives I do in the ocean actually.