Article: Technical versus Recreational Scuba Diving: Why is there a need for Limitations?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Devon Diver wrote,

"If a dive doesn't permit direct ascent to the surface at a constant, pre-determined ascent speed, then it isn't a recreational dive. That speed should enable safe off-gassing from the dive planned, whilst being of sufficient speed to reasonably allow an 'average' capability diver to surface in an OOA (should be LOA) situation."
And,
"That leaves us with a clear definition of 'recreational'... and then,... everything else beyond that."

If PADI had defined or disclaimed the achronym "NDL" the way you just did, my co-student and I, while in our OW class, would not have disagreed with the text. But if they had, NDL would not be an acronym in use today. NDL is a marketing term; its gets people who don't want to do things that may be dangerous, involved in diving.

I was reading some documents produced by DAN. They claim that people die from emergency ascents.
“Common factors associatedwith diving fatalities includedrunning out of gas,entrapment or entanglement,buoyancy control, equipmentmisuse, rough water and​
emergency ascent.”
cite: https://d35gjurzz1vdcl.cloudfront.net/ftw-files/Fatalities_Proceedings.pdf

I am trying to make a philosophical point. Un-hinge your mind from PADI marketing. All dives are decompression dives; some happen to require "staged" decompression.
The grey area between rec diving and tech diving can only be defined by the individual. Be responsible for yourself and accept the consequences of your actions. If you are diving below 40 fsw without a redundant gas supply, you are an irresponsible diver (octo and buddy are not redundant gas supplies). And yes, that is MY OPINION based on 40 years surviving oceans. All organizations that teach NDL from 130 fsw and up are irespsonsible agencies (MY OPINON). A diver who does not have proper gear better not DEMAND my help if they get in trouble at depth. markm
 
Could have been a nice article, if it had a bit a bigger scope (the world of recreational diving is not limited to Padi, and please don't confuse quantity with quality). But reading the authors comments here in the discussion, that's not really a surprise.

No matter your diving religion, a look over your mental walls usually enlarges your horizon and might give you some new perspectives. I was hoping for that reading the article... But, oh well..
sad.gif
 
an OOA (should be LOA) situation."

Nope, I'm specifically referring to OOA situations. In short, the completion of a Controlled Emergency Swimming Ascent. It's the lowest common denominator. Basically, a definition of recreational diving that maintains the diver in a depth and deco state where they can complete a CESA to end the dive. NDL simply defines that deco state, according to whatever method is used to calculate on/off-gassing.


I was reading some documents produced by DAN. They claim that people die from emergency ascents.
“Common factors associatedwith diving fatalities included running out of gas,entrapment or entanglement,buoyancy control, equipment misuse, rough water and
emergency ascent.”


Yes, that's true. However, I've read several publications (including some from DAN) that state that 'in most instances' the diver concerned did manage to reach the surface, but subsequently sunk back down and drowned.

From that, I determine that the issue isn't the CESA itself, but rather the actions of the diver upon surfacing. The primary issue is a "failure to attain positive buoyancy on the surface". Panic is obviously a factor here. Weighting and 'ingraining' skills is also a factor. That's not addressed effectively by many instructors. It is something that I can see being addressed by the dive industry over the last few years.

I am trying to make a philosophical point. Un-hinge your mind from PADI marketing. All dives are decompression dives; some happen to require "staged" decompression.

Philosophical point noted :)

I've been privileged to experience training from 6 different agencies, have taught for 4 of them in a civilian and military environment... and have a good grasp and/or first hand experience with the training and concepts of many others. I'm not trying to brain-wash the world into a PADI approach. I'm neither a PADI critic, not a PADI supporter - I take each issue on its individual merits.

In part I am addressing a PADI audience...or a wider 'WRSTC' audience - because, in reality, they make up the vast majority of the diving community. On the other hand, PADI marketing aside, I do feel that PADI have a decent system of boundaries. I'm a cynic.. and I don't doubt that those boundaries arise from fear of litigation - but whatever the cause, the result has been that training boundaries are realistically aligned to the training content and some quite accurate assumptions/predictions about the 'general' quality of divers at a given level of training and experience.

The grey area between rec diving and tech diving can only be defined by the individual. Be responsible for yourself and accept the consequences of your actions.

So, if your son/daughter/wife/girlfriend/mother/father/brother/sister did an entry level scuba course with maybe 20 dives post-course experience... and then decided to define their diving to include the capacity for 50m 'light' deco dives with a single AL80... you'd have no problems with that? It'd be their definition and their responsibility?

The agency, the instructor.. the peers... of that diver shouldn't attempt to help them define a suitable boundary?

If you are diving below 40 fsw without a redundant gas supply, you are an irresponsible diver

How about without any gas supply? I can free-dive below 40fsw. How could it possibly be irresponsible for me to do the same, but with 2400 litres of accessible air strapped to my back?

Or did you mean 40msw?

Could have been a nice article, if it had a bit a bigger scope (the world of recreational diving is not limited to Padi,...

When writing articles, the author sets the scope. This is based on the topic to be covered and also the predicted readership and relevance of the material.

I've tried to make a point that most divers who will read this, and to whom the discussion of 'training' is relevant, are PADI divers, or WRSTC affiliated agency divers.

Despite being a BSAC (CMAS recognised) instructor, I choose to disregard the practices of these organisations. To do otherwise would be to overly dilute and confuse the information I was trying to communicate. Also, I don't believe that the actions of the minority should dictate the practices of the majority.

In reality, you or I could start our own agencies tomorrow. After all, what is an agency? We could set our own definitions as we saw fit, however novel, ludicrous or non-typical. Should those definitions have any sway over the practices that are agreed, consented to and accepted by the vast majority of the diving community?

...please don't confuse quantity with quality. But reading the authors comments here in the discussion, that's not really a surprise.

I see that I've caught a nerve. That's odd, because I've made my experience and agency affiliations here quite transparent... and neither of those confuse quality with quantity.


No matter your diving religion, a look over your mental walls usually enlarges your horizon and might give you some new perspectives. I was hoping for that reading the article... But, oh well..
sad.gif

I'm actually glad that my article challenged some people and sparked debate. That was my intention. I don't expect to 'change the diving world'... but if someone reads my article and has cause to assess and develop their own understanding of boundaries, then I'll be delighted.

As you say - looking over your mental walls and enlarging your horizon.

I'm sorry if you didn't enjoy the challenge. Keep using the search function, you might find some other articles that aren't as challenging to your beliefs.
 
In my opinion a dive is a 'technical" dive when the diver is carrying/using two different gasses in order to complete the dive. For example the diver using EAN32 on the bottom and completing the dive on 100% O2, or some other high % O2 mixture.
 
When writing articles, the author sets the scope. This is based on the topic to be covered and also the predicted readership and relevance of the material.

I've tried to make a point that most divers who will read this, and to whom the discussion of 'training' is relevant, are PADI divers, or WRSTC affiliated agency divers.

Despite being a BSAC (CMAS recognised) instructor, I choose to disregard the practices of these organisations. To do otherwise would be to overly dilute and confuse the information I was trying to communicate. Also, I don't believe that the actions of the minority should dictate the practices of the majority.

In reality, you or I could start our own agencies tomorrow. After all, what is an agency? We could set our own definitions as we saw fit, however novel, ludicrous or non-typical. Should those definitions have any sway over the practices that are agreed, consented to and accepted by the vast majority of the diving community?
Again, quantity over quality. But this was not acutally the point I wanted to make. I was rather referring to one of your key statements, that any dive with deco-stops should be considered as technical diving. I would rather call that a Padi specific feature (the reasons for that is probably food for another thread, but it might be related to the quantity question).

I see that I've caught a nerve. That's odd, because I've made my experience and agency affiliations here quite transparent... and neither of those confuse quality with quantity.
There are several posts of you in this thread where you argue that due to numbers only Padi is relevant, latest a few lines above this.


I'm actually glad that my article challenged some people and sparked debate. That was my intention. I don't expect to 'change the diving world'... but if someone reads my article and has cause to assess and develop their own understanding of boundaries, then I'll be delighted.

As you say - looking over your mental walls and enlarging your horizon.

I'm sorry if you didn't enjoy the challenge. Keep using the search function, you might find some other articles that aren't as challenging to your beliefs.
Well, actually I didn't find the challenge (I probably didn't formulate my last post clear enough to point that out, my bad).
 
Again, quantity over quality. But this was not acutally the point I wanted to make. I was rather referring to one of your key statements, that any dive with deco-stops should be considered as technical diving. I would rather call that a Padi specific feature (the reasons for that is probably food for another thread, but it might be related to the quantity question).

Actually, I think every agency employs a system of boundaries related to training and experience.

Why would you ascertain that this was a PADI specific feature?

I think I've explained quite clearly why and how PADI (and many other agencies) relate a certain level of training against a boundary the provides the diver with the option of always conducting a direct ascent to the surface.

We can argue about what the words 'technical diving' mean - but in reality, what I'm talking about is appropriate training and experience. A diver needs appropriate training and experience to deal with problems that may arise if immediate return to the surface is not an option for them.

In composing my article, I've used terms that everyone can understand. If anyone was confused, they can hit up Wikipedia and learn what I am talking about.

One of the themes of my article is that confusion doesn't help divers. BSAC clubs welcome divers of any affiliation. PADI dive centres don't turn away divers from other agencies. CMAS divers occasionally leave the shelter of Europe and have to encounter other ways of doing things. Even GUE divers occasionally share space with lesser mortals.

Wouldn't it be helpful if every could sing off the same song-sheet?

Now... I could train you to BSAC Sports Diver level. That would allow you to do deco dives. I could also train you to conduct deco dives with the TecRec system that PADI have launched. Knowing both training systems intimately, and having conducted many hundreds of deco dives, I feel that I am in a fair position to judge the merits and drawbacks of both. I feel that one system allows divers to enter into that 'virtual overhead' without the full spectrum of skills, procedures and options at their disposal. The other system specifically provides those.

In terms of quality, scope - and specificity for the task - the Tec40/45/50 courses far exceed the BSAC Sports Diver course. Is that what you mean by quality comparison?
 
Comming from Europe, I know the usual dive formation systems / agencies / religions present here: Padi, SSI, CMAS and a bit NAUI. Out of these - to my knowledge - only Padi uses no-decompression-dives. The reason for this, I was told by several Padi-Instructors, is to keep the training and knowledge level low, as to have the lowest possible hurdles for people interested in diving (that's why I meant quantity over quality). This might be ok for people who "just" want to dive in their holidays with a guide, not knowing if they will ever dive again in their life.

Other people want to achieve proficiency so they can also dive without instructor (usually those which are also willing to invest money in equipment :wink:) These are usually more interested in understanding what is actually going on with their body when diving and who don't mind bothering with theory lessons, tables, written exams etc..

I would have enjoyed a discussion of this aspect in your article, which might be helpful for new divers and also experienced divers, who are looking to expand their skills an knowledge by doing formations with different agencies to satisfy their interest (so far I have completed formations with SSI and CMAS). Maybe also give recommendations about which system suits which interests. Even better: Try to show how the different formationsystems work (e.g. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/PADI-Ausbildungssystem.svg or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/CMAS-Ausbildung.svg , from the German wiki, didn't find an English version).

According to my experience, somebody thinking about starting to dive, usually has no clue what different systems exist, what the differences are and therefore cannot choose the system that fits him best. Even experienced divers often don't know much about other systems than the one they are in. This leads to many misunderstandings, rumors and semi-knowledge.
 
SSI doesn't allow deco - it's an WRSTC member, same as PADI. SSI has a tech program (Tech XR) for deco diving, the same as PADI has the TecRec program.

NAUI also has a full-spectrum technical range. That includes a 'Decompression Diver' course. I'm not that familiar with NAUI, but their course lay-out seems quite similar to PADI and SSI. The only mention of deco within the 'recreational' program that I can see is in the Deep Diver course description:

Although this is not a decompression techniques course, you will learn about decompression procedures including nitrogen narcosis and decompression sickness, and the use of dive computers including avoiding the need for stage decompression.

I teach PADI, SSI and BSAC (which is CMAS recognised). The entry-level courses, in terms of content and capability are virtually identical. Speculation about whether X agency is 'better' than Y agency is wasted effort - as it is the skill, motivation and experience of the instructor that counts. The motivation and focus of the student comes a close second to that. Differences between agencies are largely inconsequential compared to those two factors.
 
The major difference between PADI, SSI e.a. and CMAS is that the CMAS federations work with real decompression tables from the very beginning on (i.e. several European federations use the Deco2000, the French use MN90) and they teach their entry level students how to use them. And from the second level on they start practicing decompression dives as recreational dives.

I don't want to judge here which way is the better one, but fact is that it's not just some individuals which draw the borderline between Tec and Rec different than PADI and some others do.
 
In my limited knowledge and experience I don't think a definition for 'technical' diving can be made that would apply across the industry.

* Deco-stops. BSAC Sports Divers are trained (and assessed) to undertake these - its a recreation diving grade.
* Mixed gasses. The use of Nitrox is intertwined throughout the BSAC Diver Training Syllabus, from elementary level up.
* Multiple cylinders. Encouraged to carry an independent (pony) air source at BSAC Sports Diver.

Regards
 

Back
Top Bottom