Wreck Penetration

[Blackwood]

Absolutely not! I do not recognize the concept of "technical diving."

That's because there are many different definitions of the term and even if everyone were to agree on one definition, the designation would still be useless.

About 20 years ago somebody coined the term to encompass a bunch of unrelated activities. At first it meant dives that broke rules established by agencies. Now, it's trying to (and succeeding in many cases) make new rules to put "technical" diving within another set of rules. Later folks started including established, although not mainstream, specialties, like cave diving, in with the other unrelated types of diving under the "technical" umbrella. "Technical" diving is a meaningless term. It means too many things to too many people. When you say "technical" diving I have no idea if you are referring to cave, mixed gas, solo, deep air, something else or a combination. If you are interested in mixed gas; refer to mixed gas; if it's cave; refer to cave, etc. Your message will be much clearer. Expertise in one type of "technical" diving does not carry over into another. "Technical" diving is a useless distinction that IMHO we should all stop using.

While I agree, I find it odd that you (evidently) don't have similar objections to the term "recreational" diving which, as I understand it, tells you even less than "technical" diving.

At least with "technical" you were able to come up with cave, mixed gas, solo, deep air, something else or a combination. With "recreational," all I can come up with is you aren't getting paid for it.

I admit that I use the term out of convenience more than anything, and that specificity should be used when required (e.g. I wouldn't expect someone to lead me into a cave because I mention that I've had 'technical' training'). Otherwise, say what you will.

 

[Walter]

While I agree, I find it odd that you (evidently) don't have similar objections to the term "recreational" diving which, as I understand it, tells you even less than "technical" diving.

I don't find it terribly useful either. I usually just talk about "diving."

With "recreational," all I can come up with is you aren't getting paid for it.

Yep, that's about it. You're either diving commercially (military is a subset) or recreationally.

 

[Thalassamania]

Not sure why this is under "Basic." Perhaps that is the first mistake. Followed by many more who enter wrecks without training.

The Balboa in Cayman, the Thunderbolt in the Florida Keys the U-853 off Rhode Island and the Andrea Doria are very different dives requiring very different training and preparation, but all are "wreck diving." That's why my answer is, "It depends."

 

[Aquatic Eagle]

Not sure why this is under "Basic." Perhaps that is the first mistake. Followed by many more who enter wrecks without training.

I wanted to get the input from more than just those in the "Advanced" or "Technical" forums.

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

Reg Braithwaite, let's assume everyone adopts your definition (they won't, but for discussion, let's assume they do). Now, we're all in agreement on the term. What use is it?

Given that we can say "This dive is beyond so-and-so's training" as well as "this dive is beyond recreational limits," I would happily join you in abolishing it. But if people must use it and want me to use it, I want a definition that folks would nod and agree with.

I use my definition to figure out what goes where on SB. Basic == Of interest to OW Divers. Advanced == Within recreational limits but beyond OW training. Technical == everything beyond recreational limits.

Of course, you could then say that DIR and Hogarthian do not belong in technical diving by my standards, as you can do DIR fundies in your HOG setup and are in some ways allegedly less qualified than a PADI AOW with Nitrox. This came up in a debate about whether discussing a BP/W belonged in the technical diving forum.

So... Do I agree with you that the phrase means different things to different people and is therefore not very helpful? Yes. Do I use it anyways? Also yes, but I thought I'd blather a bit about what I mean when adding to the cacophony by using the phrase.

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

I think just good plain common sense can serve you quite well.

You have probably forgotten what it is like to have fifty-ish dives under your belt, but the trouble with common sense is that it is hard to self-evaluate. Someone with ten dives is probably scared of going into a wreck. Someone with 200 like yourself probably knows when a wreck is innocuous and when it is a serious undertaking.

But someone with fifty dives might be a little overconfident in their newly acquired abilities and vast number of dives into internet threads. So they may think they have the common sense to know what they should and shouldn't do, but are they they best judge?

 

[BDSC]

You have probably forgotten what it is like to have fifty-ish dives under your belt, but the trouble with common sense is that it is hard to self-evaluate. Someone with ten dives is probably scared of going into a wreck. Someone with 200 like yourself probably knows when a wreck is innocuous and when it is a serious undertaking.

But someone with fifty dives might be a little overconfident in their newly acquired abilities and vast number of dives into internet threads. So they may think they have the common sense to know what they should and shouldn't do, but are they they best judge?

If not themselves then who?

 

[John_B]

So now I return to my own personal definition of technical diving: Any dive falling outside of the training designated by a major agency as being within "recreational limits."

IANTD definition of "Sport Diving" includes light decompression dives in the Adv. Nitrox class, and even Adv Rec Trimix. Also, I met an English diver who said his club/agency (BSAC) taught light decompression as part of their standard open water diver training. So now you have to parse which major agencies to include or exclude.

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

IANTD definition of "Sport Diving" includes light decompression dives in the Adv. Nitrox class, and even Adv Rec Trimix. Also, I met an English diver who said his club/agency (BSAC) taught light decompression as part of their standard open water diver training. So now you have to parse which major agencies to include or exclude.

Well, sport is a whole new word

But yeah, if you want to make life difficult for yourself you can look at all kinds of agencies. GUE has Fundamentals. After that, you can take Recreational Triox for minimal deco dives down to 120'. They have Tech 1 and Tech 2 for deco, but Cave 1 and Cave 2 are not called "Tech," so does that mean that GUE doesn't consider no-decompression cave diving to be technical diving?

Or you can do what I do and simply go by PADI's standards when figuring out what is technical and what is not. This makes a certain amount of sense due to the sheer number of people who would nod and agree with the definition. After all, it's the way the world learns to dive ;-)

 

[Walter]

Well, sport is a whole new word

Actually, until fairly recently, it was more common to hear, "sport diving" than "recreational diving."