Wreck Penetration

[Blackwood]

I believe SDI will give you their Advanced diver card without taking the specialties if you can proove experience.

Steve

I'd be surprised if other agencies don't allow you to buy their cards too.

While I agree with your sentiments, I can understand the position of the dive ops. In a litigious world (and nation in particular), it's nice to be able to point the finger at someone else. "They have a shiny piece of plastic that says 'Agency X has certified them to do these types of dives'. I'm not responsible."

That said, I'd love to see American diving follow the European model (only time I can remember saying anything like that!). But I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[ScubaSteve]

why should divers who have proven they have knowledge

Experience does not equal skill and experience can also be safe only because of luck in many situations. I have seen divers that were certainly lucky where the obvious skills failed them.....and some of those with a ton of experience if you just ask them. In some cases I agree that experience should/does count but that can be a dangerous rule.
JMO

Posted via Mobile Device

 

[jsado]

In the St. Lawrence there is a wreck called the A.E. Vickery. It has 2 massive side by side 8ft square holes in it. One can very easily swim in, take a look around the cargo hold and swim out. That couldn't possibly be defined as "technical". There are basically no hazards involved.

 

[BDSC]

It's probably only a matter of time before we have "technical snorkeling".

 

[Reg Braithwaite]

JM2C:

To me, the term "technical diving" has a very precise meaning in SCUBA. Technical diving is: Any and all diving beyond "Recreational Limits." Now we ask what are "Recreational Limits?" There is a pointless conversation about all non-professional diving being recreational. Luckily for us, we understand that in English, the word "recreational" means one thing in one context, and another thing in a different context. The term "recreational limits" refers to a fairly well-understood set of activities deemed reasonably safe for divers trained by the big agencies. We can figure out what these activities are by looking at the agencies's training curricula. Anything an agency trains a recreational diver to do is a within recreational limits.

For example, everything you can take from PADI, including the specialties, is still recreational diving. Advanced recreational diving perhaps, but within recreational limits. Note that I am not saying that a PADI OW diver is trained to dive within recreational limits. For example, PADI's own guidelines are that an OW diver is supposed to stay above 60' until trained with Deep Specialty or AOW. So a 90' dive can be within recreational limits but be beyond the training for many recreational divers.

"Recreational limits" include obvious things like so-called no-decompression diving and no-overhead diving. PADI does provide for the option of limited wreck penetration in the presence of an instructor when you take the Wreck Specialty. Therefore I conclude that there are some limited cases where a wreck penetration falls under the umbrella of diving within recreational limits.

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." This in no way suggests that technical diving is a precise activity. This in no way suggests that technical diving is not recreational in nature. This in no way suggests that the agencies have sound or sensible definitions of what is and isn't within recreational limits, or that they agree with each other. And I am not saying I believe that PADI training or anything else is a sound approach to risk management. Just that it provides a fairly clear criterion for distinguishing recreational diving from non-recreational diving, and that I am comfortable using the word "technical" to describe diving beyond recreational limits.

p.s. This definition can also be used to answer the gear debate. Is BP/W and long hose technical even on a shallow, OW dive? Good question. Can you find a PADI class where they will teach you to use them? Likewise with doubles: Will an instructor teach you how to shut down a free flowing post and/or isolate them as part of your deep or ice specialties? If so, doubles are not technical in and of themselves. What about reels and line handling? Well, do you learn those in your PADI Cavern Specialty? Yes? Than a reel is not in and of itself technical. Simple!

So... When you see me with BP/W, long hose, single tank with Y valve, and a reel hanging from my waist, you will know that I am not a technical diver, just a recreational diver diving within recreational limits.

 

[lefemme36]

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

 

[eponym]

It's probably only a matter of time before we have "technical snorkeling".

Careful what you wish for . . .

The weirder of these is from this prior post.

[/HIJACK]

-Bryan

 

[BDSC]

All the wrecks I have dove have been in the Caribbean or off the coast of NC. Many in the Caribbean have been sunk for the purpose of diving and like several have said, many times they have doors removed and are set-up to remove most of the obvious hazards. I don't see going into these wrecks as being any more "technical" in nature than going through a swim-thru on a reef.

I also don't think you need to have completed a "wreck diver" course to dive on or go into a wreck. (wrecks like I have mentioned above) If a person feels better about taking such a course and feels it will make them safer before they dive wrecks then by all means do it. But I think just good plain common sense can serve you quite well.

 

[ScubaSteve]

I think the bottom line is if somebody wants to do something that could (or will) kill them, they will. They are not going to care what we call it. They are not going to care about all the people that say it is safe or all the people that say it will be guaranteed death. They are going to do what they are going to do and selectively choose to listen to only that which supports their stance. All that we can do is to say "This can be dangerous because....." and offer them ways to overcome the hurdles and make it safer for them.....we can only then leave it to them to decide if they want to heed the warning and take the instruction or not.

Is penetrating a wreck "Technical"? I have my opinion as do others but those opinions mean nothing to the person that is planning to go to the center of the Oriskany (I just picked a wreck) on a single AL80 with no formal training or extra equipment such as reels and lights. They will do what they are going to do.

 

[Walter]

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?