Does defining "technical diving" serve any purpose?

[Rhone Man]

Just following on from this thread, I was thinking about the argument that having a definition or a label is potentially unhelpful, and I was mulling that separate thought.

I think overall my own view is that having a definition, or at least a description (accepting that many people disagree on what it should be) does have a value for two reasons.

(1) For the general sport diving population, it provides some kind of definition for the class of things which "you know that you don't know". I was recently re-reading the PADI diving encyclopedia and they list five "types" of tec diving (from memory: deeper dives, trimix (as a separate category), cave penetration, wreck penetration, rebreathers), which I thought was pretty sensible: if you want to do these five things, get more training.

(2) Until the end of time, there will always be a breed of divers who want to try and prove something by "going beyond". In a world where tec diving didn't exist, those are the people that will try and do the deep bounce bounce dives or plunge headlong into caves. If you can deflect at least some of that macho-ness into doing courses so that they can brandish macho cards rather than trying to do macho things (untrained), we may save a few lives.

[Mike Boswell]

Yes, I think it does serve a purpose. When I started diving everyone used Navy tables and did their own thing, and many people (including me) were doing dives they were not adequately equipped or trained to do. In Hawaii, the black coral industry and the fished-out shallower reefs were sending divers deeper every year.

NO definition will ever be perfect and acceptable to all, but I think the current definition enables us to have an acceptably safe recreational dive industry, and a path for people to progress further if desired.

[DevonDiver]

I don't think the importance is in defining 'technical' diving, but rather in providing a definition and scope for 'recreational' diving.

IMHO, it is important to provide clear boundaries and (recommended) limitations on recreational diving. These boundaries and limitations are necessary to reflect the very limited training and capability demanded in modern recreational diving courses. Recreational dive training is cheap and cheerful nowadays. The standards are low and produce a 'lowest common denominator diver'. If it weren't for the major limitations imposed on those divers, then this training would be considered fool-hardy and insubstantial.

Likewise, those who complete this training and feel themselves 'qualified' or 'capable' of pushing boundaries in diving must also be considered fool-hardy. It is often the case of the classic 'small fish in a big pond' syndrome.

We see this all the time - as divers opt to throw scorn at the 'main-stream' agencies like PADI or SSI. 'Put Another Dollar In' - sure, why not? The courses are cheap and cheerful and undemanding. You won't fail. You don't need any commitment. You don't have to buy expensive specialist equipment. You won't need to put in any real effort or risk your ego getting burnt. Having completed your weekend '4-dive' wreck course or deep course...just respect the limits they give you. THAT IS ALL THEY ASK OF YOU. Really... what can you expect? To be an expert?

In contrast, technical diving is a diverse and broadly scoped arena. It's possible to argue all day about how to define it. Most would agree that it includes: mixed gas diving, O2 >40%, decompression, overhead environments, helium, staged decompression etc. Regardless of 'type', it requires substantial commitment - both physical, mental, time and financial. It is demanding, in every sense. It means exposing your ego to criticism, the risk of failure and being a 'small fish' in a big, big pond.

In return for that, the 'limitations' are removed. With increasing training and progression, the boundaries and scope become exponentially greater. There is far more freedom. That freedom is earned...and deserved.

But we don't need to define technical diving...we just need to recognise that it is 'diving beyond the limits of recreational diving'.

[davetowz]

To me .. My opinion...flame away if you must. The dividing line happens to be when the surface is no longer an option. This may be a hard ceiling such as a cave dive or a penetration on a wreck or as simple as exceeding NDL, giving you a "soft ceiling"

[Simon-]

I think the current definitions as given by the TecRec programs are pretty self-explainatory and easy to understand.

The hard part is getting certain types of divers to accept those definitions and realise that some of the dives that are undertaken or planned are not recreational. Simply exceeding the limits of recreational diving does not make it a technical dive. They are in fact trying to do a "recreational technical dive" (not the greatest description, but you get my drift), beyond their training and/or capabilities.

Limits are there for a reason, be it NDL, penetration, depth etc.and these limits need to be respected and defined.

[OuterReefAdventure]

I was gonna reply but realized I was not passionate enough about the subject///

[mathauck0814]

I think the line is the point at which an open water diver (insert additional adjective as you see fit) inquires about a course and suddenly balks at the financial investment in equipment and course fees. On the other side of that you're squarely in the tech realm :-)

Seriously though, it's a lot more useful to just define for people what their operating constraints are. So far as I can tell every course (tech included - at least the ones I've taken) has a max depth, max turn pressure, or some other constraint that constitutes the limits of your training. You can obviously learn from other, better divers without the training though in my case learning from other, better divers has just made me want to get the formal training more - YMMV

So if folks "dive within their training and experience" then there's really no need for us to "define" what technical diving is. Once you cross the line, you'll be acutely aware of where you are in your journey. I doubt many people are fuzzy as to whether or not they're tech diving...

[mddolson]

I also believe any dive with a rebreather (whether deco or within NDL) is considered a technical dive by the various certifying agencies.

Mike D

[Doc Harry]

Does defining "technical diving" serve any purpose?

Yeah, it serves to give life insurance companies an excuse to refuse to write a policy for you.

[DevonDiver]

I also believe any dive with a rebreather (whether deco or within NDL) is considered a technical dive by the various certifying agencies.

Closed Circuit Rebreather. Semi-closed have been generally recognised as being at 'recreational' level for some time.

Yeah, it serves to give life insurance companies an excuse to refuse to write a policy for you.

Ouch. Really?

Obtaining diving insurance has never been a problem for technical diving - although most only make provision up to a certain depth - beyond which you need to insure individual dives. Typically 130m+.... expedition level stuff.