Wreck Penetration

[String]

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

For about the only time ever i actually agree with you. Its a pointless artificial definition that actually explains nothing.

If someone has a single tank are they rec and twins on the same dive tec? If someone dives to 40m are they rec but 41m they're tec?

What if they stay 1 minute inside computer NDL vs 1 minute over ?

Someone at 35m on air is rec but 35m on trimix is tec?

Someone with a plate and wing is tec?

Theres no such thing. Its all diving with a gradual line of increasing complexity in terms of planning, skills and equipment. You cant separate out some diving into its own class.

 

[tgsmith]

Dude,

You're thinking WAY too much about this. I hope it doesn't keep you up at night.

For about the only time ever i actually agree with you. Its a pointless artificial definition that actually explains nothing.

If someone has a single tank are they rec and twins on the same dive tec? If someone dives to 40m are they rec but 41m they're tec?

What if they stay 1 minute inside computer NDL vs 1 minute over ?

Someone at 35m on air is rec but 35m on trimix is tec?

Someone with a plate and wing is tec?

Theres no such thing. Its all diving with a gradual line of increasing complexity in terms of planning, skills and equipment. You cant separate out some diving into its own class.

 

[Nemrod]

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.

Technically speaking, I don't accept the concept of technical diving either.

N

 

[InTheDrink]

tgsmith, I don't agree.

Broad umbrella terms only serve to confuse, not elucidate.

Technical Diving as a term seems meaningless to me,except perhaps as a sales device.

 

[rescue15]

This whole tech thing is getting out of hand. I have been diving "tech" since before most agencies condoned the use of nitrox. I owned one of Dive Rites first plates. We did penetrations using doubles, sometimes 100cuft with 30 cu ft ponies. We hung on staged nitrox at 40 ft and oxygen at 15. We penetrated using reels, sometimes surfaced using Jersey up lines. We did all this using tables and sometimes air computers. We learned using common sense and from other respected divers like Dan Berg and Gary Gentile. Nobody asked for a special tech card. We dove "tech" and did it safely. Now, nobody can penetrate unless you have a tech card. I would like to see a dive boat captain turn away Gary Gentile and stop him from penetrating the Sp Grove or the "O".

Why can't we get back to common sense diving and diving your comfort level? Why turn away a North Atlantic diver with hundreds of dives and documented penetrations because he doesn't have the card of the week? Just because he chooses not to spend hundreds of dollars on the TDI program doesn't nean he doesn't know how to do it SAFELY ( he probably used that money to go diving). There is alot to say about experience and the school of hard knocks.

I am a full time carreer firefighter. My whole life is limited viz and overhead environments. We have some volunteer firefighters ( nothing against the volunteers - I think they do a great job and should be admired) that have every training class in the book...but they have never been in a fire. Should I let that person lead me into the worst fire of my life...or should someone with some classes and 25 years experience lead the way?

It's the same thing!

It doesn't make it tech because you wear different gear. It's diving - with a different set of consequences if you are careless.

Steve

 

[John_B]

Interesting how Casa and Rescue are trying to turn this into a gear issue.

 

[Walter]

It's not a gear issue, it's a silly, meaningless, artificial division issue.

 

[RonFrank]

If wreck penetration is technical diving, then I am a technical diver!

Granted, I don't do stupid things, but I've done a number of penetrations. I've done Grove penetrations several times. I stay to the outer walls, and try and keep an exit in sight. I also tend to do it with divers who have done these dives a LOT.

I think if you go in ten rooms deep at 120' that is a different level of diving vs. what I have done there. I dive within my comfort zone. If I go three rooms in, and can not see an exit, I generally let my buddies know I am going to exit unless we agreed upon this plan before the dive.

I dive in my comfort zone as I would suggest ALL divers do with maybe the exception of the newbie, who may not be in any comfort zone for the first several dives.

 

[charlesml3]

I think you'd be hard pressed to call the C-53 in Cozumel or the Prince Albert off the beach at Cocoview a "technical dive." Sure you swim inside with an overhead environment. You also can't go 10 feet without a hole cut in the side or deck.

These wrecks were put there by divers, for divers. That's not the same as diving something like the Andrea Doria.

-Charles

 

[Teamcasa]

Interesting how Casa and Rescue are trying to turn this into a gear issue.

It's not a gear issue, it's a silly, meaningless, artificial division issue.

Walter is exactly right. I am not at all trying to make this a gear issue.

Diving has many facets and to me, regardless of your preference in gear, I consider all diving to be a techinical based skill, even within recreational limits. Diving beyond traditional recreational limits becomes even more techinical.