The definition of Recreational Diving vs. Technical.

[Sas]

These definitions have been around longer than I have been diving.

Recreational Diving

• Limit to 130'.
• No overhead environments such as a Cave.
• No Deco obligations.
• No Rebreathers.

This has not changed, so why is it under constant discussion lately?

The no deco tables was trained with to 50m and I was taught decompression diving to 35m in the AOW equivalent from the agency I did most of my training with...

Personally I don't care how tech diving is classified, but around the world there are vastly differing ideas of what is technical. Nearly all of my buddies are pure recreational divers but will do deco dives. Also to throw this out there, most of them are quite happy to dive to 50m on air, and many have done so for many years over many dives (in some cases decades) without incident.

 

[DevonDiver]

....and many have done so for many years over many dives (in some cases decades) without incident.

Does that infer that some did so with incident?

Would those incidents have been avoidable had more precise, specific techniques and equipment been utilised?

 

[DevonDiver]

Diving is just diving? I can't argue against that.

I can however question whether that terms is meant to mean that 'all diving is performed the same way, with the same risks,requirements, techniques and procedures'.

I posted the following example on another (similar topic) thread earlier today. I think it accurately conveys the benefits of differentiating between different levels of 'technicality'. The use of definition serves to illustrate how one activity can be very generalised, whereas another may be 'precise' and use 'certain techniques'.

1. draw·ing

   noun /ˈdrô-iNG/  drawings, plural A picture or diagram made with a pencil, pen, or crayon rather than paint, esp. one drawn in monochrome - a series of charcoal drawings on white paper The art or skill or making such pictures or diagrams - she took lessons in drawing

tech·ni·cal draw·ing noun technical drawings, plural The practice or skill of delineating objects in a precise way using certain techniques of draftsmanship, as employed in architecture or engineering A drawing produced in such a way

 

[davetowz]

Wish I had the graphic of the bled out horse being flogged, really. Unless you have received training besides, stick to the NDL in the tables that your chosen agency published. They did not just create them on a bar napkin over rum.

 

[DevonDiver]

Wish I had the graphic of the bled out horse being flogged, really. Unless you have received training besides, stick to the NDL in the tables that your chosen agency published. They did not just create them on a bar napkin over rum.

You mean like this one: :*deadhorse*: (remove the * to make it work)

 

[Sas]

Does that infer that some did so with incident?

No. I don't know how you took this from my post.

 

[TSandM]

If you accept the definitions in the original post, there's very little to talk about.

But some of the concepts are a little bit elusive . . . if my computer says I have 2 minutes of NDL left, and my buddy's says he has 10 minutes of deco, is he doing a tech dive when I am not? If I dip down to 140 feet for one minute to look at something, but multi-level the dive enough to stay out of deco, was that a tech dive? If I swim ten feet under a rock overhang, is that a tech dive?

I do agree with SeaJay that the people who seem to worry the most about the definitions are the people who don't do that sort of diving. My take is that there is no bright line, but there is a gradual transition from dives where it is sufficient to be reactive (go up when gas is low) to dives where one MUST be proactive (gas and deco planning, and redundant systems). As Andy observes, those of us who have been taught careful forethought often apply those ideas to ALL the diving we do -- which doesn't make the shallow, simple dives technical dives, but it does change the way they are planned (and sometimes executed).

And I also agree that, outside of rebreathers, there is no such thing as "tech gear". Anything I use on a cave dive is also perfectly suitable and useful for a 20 foot reef dive in the Red Sea. I know, because I use the same gear to do both

 

[Deep South Divers]

Well said!

The really cool thing about using the same basic gear and the same basic procedures for each and every dive is that you get really good at both... "Muscle memory" begins to take hold, and much more of each dive begins to become more "instinctual-like," so you can better focus on having fun or the unique parts of each dive. Some divers call this concept "squared away." If the regulators are always in the same place, if the clips are always the same clips, if the rig is always the same rig, if the lights are always in the same place, and if the bottles are always in the same place (whether there's one or two or a half dozen), then you get really good at things and skills can progress linearly rather than having to relearn everything every time. A shallow, tropical reef dive may require a 3 mil and a single tank while a light penetration dive on the Vandenburg may include doubles, a sling bottle, and triple redundant lights... Maybe even a scooter. But the rig is still the same rig, the straps and D rings and regulators are all still in the same place, and the fins and trim and buoyancy are all still the same. The progression from one to the other, therefore, becomes seamless and easy and there IS no real "border" between "rec" and "tec."

Why create a large border between the two? Why create any border at all?

I use the same rig on vacation dives with the family at Ginnie Springs as I do in my daily commercial diving... And the same rig to do what might be deemed "technical" dives. If the water is wet, and you're breathing under it, then it's a dive... And a dive is a dive, and the basics always apply. Only the specifics change, and as little as possible. After a while, you get really good at the dive, regardless of whether you've dived that dive before or not.

It freaks people out. I don't know why.

 

[Agility]

Perhaps the distinction should not be the dive but the diver.
Most recreational divers who go diving one or two weeks a year during their holidays will probably never reach the level of competence to do tec dives safely. They might be comfortable under water and have perfect buoyancy and trim all the same

 

[lamont]

And today Andrew G has his own agency and can use his own terms however he sees fit.

I have certification cards from that agency that say "Introduction to Technical Diving," "Technical Diver I," and "Technical Diver II." A friend of mine has just started instructing for them, but she is only certified to teach certain courses in their "recreational" program (their term).

Now, I did hear another instructor from his agency say they want to blur the lies between technical diving and recreational diving, but Andrew is still using those terms.

AG was pushing a different meme back then, one which was not as perverted by marketing.

The "all diving is technical diving" meme meant that all the skills and attitude and training were applicable to open water diving. You still needed good buoyancy control, trim, efficient fin kicks, gas management, redundancy and failure analysis of your gear, and training to deal with emergencies and safely ascend.

That meme led me down the road of taking fundies when I had about 25 dives, just doing it because I wanted better training than PADI OW1, just doing it because I wanted to be a better diver, not because I wanted to be a technical/cave diver.

It seems like that idea has gotten a bit perverted now, where its no longer about building up a recreational diver to make them a competent diver through the use of the same tools as technical divers -- but its more about accelerating recreational divers into technical gear and making the profit off of the gear.

[ And I'm not sure exactly where that meme went. I've been noticing its absence lately. One thing is that GI3 isn't around yelling about how all the fundamental skills in DIR diving are simply straight out of the PADI OW1 manual, that if we'd just actually applied, then everyone would be diving DIR anyway. Another thing is that there seems to be a bit of a push from the technical side to institute even more of a divide between recreational and technical diving in order to make technical diving more "eleet". All of this has eroded the idea that the lines between tech and rec should be blurrier, but more so because the rec standards need to come up. ]