87 replies to this topic

[WreckWench]

So what is the definition of a technical diver?

[PerroneFord]

So what is the definition of a technical diver?

Wow, talk about a broad scope! I've heard it defined in any number of ways. But for me, it comes down to a simple thing.

To *me*, a diver becomes a technical diver when they cease diving for the sheer enjoyment of diving, and begin to dive with a purpose and is willing to purchase equipment and training to fulfill that purpose.

Edited by PerroneFord, 17 October 2005 - 11:10 PM.

[Diverbrian]

My definition is performing dives where the surface is no longer a viable option. This includes decompression (soft overhead) or actually going into an overhead.

This forces a different skill set because you can forget a CESA as an option. Underwater problems MUST be solved underwater at this level of diving. This forces you to plan gas so that you can do so in an emergency and do other things to enable you to survive an equipment failure or entanglement issue. This drives redundancy of gear and reducing entanglement hazards by the stream lining of gear.

I could go on but others will add to it or point out that the line between "tech" and "recreational" diving is often blurry (a true statement). That is why we all have so much to learn from others and even their mistakes .

[WillDiveForBeer]

I think a simple way to look at the difference between Rec and Tech diving is how much effort goes into planning the dive. If you are exceeding the PADI AOW and Nitrox training, then you are encroaching the realm of Tech diving. I am taking my IANTD Adv. Nitrox and Deep Diver, which is a hell of a lot more thorough than what PADI offers. It teaches gas management, planning deco dives, drills to prepare you to react and handle an emergency while in the water, among other things.

I don't plan on diving and studying the feeding habits of marine life. If I did and studied fish no deeper than 30 feet, would that make me a technical diver? I would just need regular gear, a single steel 120 and maybe some EANx mixture, depending on how long I wanted to dive for.

I could want to dive 300' into the Blue Hole in Belize only to experience what a few people will ever see with their own eyes, but for "recreational" purposes. Technical diving requires certain skills that go above and beyond the normal realm of diving. As defined by the Wikipedia, Technical Diving is: Technical diving is a form of SCUBA diving that exceeds the scope of recreational diving. Technical divers require advanced training, extensive experience, and specialized equipment.

I think that link is a great explanation of what technical diving is. Ya gotta love Wikipedia .

-Mike-

[TraceMalin]

So what is the definition of a technical diver?

Wow, talk about a broad scope! I've heard it defined in any number of ways. But for me, it comes down to a simple thing.

To *me*, a diver becomes a technical diver when the cease diving for the sheer enjoyment of diving, and begin to dive with a purpose and is willing to purchase equipment and training to fulfill that purpose.

Example:

Recreational Diver: "I want to dive the reefs off Key West"

Technical Diver: I want to study the behavior of XXX fishes that have a habitat on the reefs outside of Key West.


Recreational Diver: "I want to swim over to that wreck and have a look around"

Technical diver: "I need to research that boat, learn it's history, and then try to dive it and survey it.


If a particular reef, or fish, or wreck, or whatever is in 150ft of water, the recreation diver says, "it's too bad that xxx is so deep, I wish I could see it". The Technical diver says, "If I take recreational trimix, and Adv. Nitrox, I could dive and see xxx.


More than the training, the gear, etc., to me technical divers are deliniated by their attitude. I guess one could draw an analogy to golf, and I'll line a friend of my said to me when I suggested we go play a round but that I wasn't very good...

"Perrone, I've grown up around golf. I've known some hacks and some pros. Let me tell you, what you and I do is play the GAME of golf. What THEY do is play the SPORT of golf!" In the same vein technical divers pursue the goal they WANT with equipment, training and practice. Recreational divers put the DIVE first, and the exploration a distant second. or so it would seem.


Of course this is just my ramblings. Some people think there is no difference between the two genres of diving. But I think once you strap on a set of doubles, are planning deco (and I don't mean a safety stop) and are using gases other than air or nitrox below 40%, you're squarely in the real of technical diving.

Perrone,

That's an interesting insight into how "recreational divers" are viewed. It's almost as if the recreational diving industry has created an image of itself as being composed of Ken's & Barbie's who are purely tourists and who have no real interest in diving other than sight-seeing. I'm incredibly glad you of all people answered this question first because it confirms my belief that the image the receational diving industry began to paint of itself beginning in the 1980's has returned to swim up and bite us all on the @$$e$. Here you are, an admittedly new diver, who deserves a lot of respect for researching a sport that most people just take up by walking into their local dive center, or as a whim while on vacation, and entrust their lives and the lives of their loved ones to complete strangers with absolutely no information whatsoever. You deserve credit for being cautious and proceeding forward at the rate and with the training that you feel is best for you.

What interests me is your perspective on recreational diving. I'm sure the Ken & Barbie images didn't give an athletic guy like you a lot of confidence. You probably feel more trusting of G.I. Joe than Malibu Barbie. You figure that she and Ken have just been out putzing around a shallow reef without purpose for fun and recreation while G.I. Joe is out there trying to recover a sunken satellite from a hippo infested African lake in the middle of a blood feud tribal war that has been brewing since before the battle of Rourke's Drift?

What if I told you that the British are absolutely mad and insane when it comes to recreational diving? Peter will confirm this. I lived in Cornwall and you couldn't find a dive boat there as we know them that would be going out to anything shallower than a trimix 2 dive on a weekend. Those folks were just going to look around 300 ft. deep shipwrecks for fun much like new divers do the reefs off Key West. If you wanted to do a recreational dive, you might have to suit up in your drysuit on shore and also don tanks and have a RIB (rigid inflatable boat) like a Zodiac take you several miles out to sea to dive, say, the Manacles. I was an avid reader of Diver (UK) magazine before going there to try to run a freediving center and even after I moved to Cayman Brac two years later I was reading that magazine. The reason was that you wouldn't have believed the things they were doing for "recreational diving." There was a story about two secretaries who were working for the British gov't in some African nation at an embassy. For FUN they decided to go dive a shallow hippo infested lake out in the bush in the middle of a brewing tribal war. They just wanted to have a look at it and see what a lake there was like and to say they had done it while on holiday. They hired a professional guide who was against the idea. But, they paid him enough to take them. The guide ended up being attacked and severely injured by a hippo during the dive. These ladies were stalwart tourists, but tourists none the less. I think you go mad when you eat a Cornish pasty. There must still be tin from the mines that coats every food source and destroys brain cells.

There are many open water divers who pay extra travel fees to do trips on the Aggressor Fleet and assist in the work of scientists such as Eugenie Clark, who studies sharks, or take a video course from a Howard Hall or Marty Snyderman (two well-known filmmakers) or a class with a still photographer like Stephen Frink. They will be breathing air, they will not be diving deep, and they have very secific missions to complete such as a fish count or to take pictures for the purpose of learning. I often get paid to take pictures of dams for state engineers inless than 10 feet of water. I have very specific missions, but those dives are easy and require no skills other than breathing & pushing the shutter button. But, is that then a technical dive or just a dive with a purpose?

In the PDIC Wreck Diving Specialty, not my standards, which are high as we know, but PDIC's standards are that their "recreational" non-penetration course involve library research or internet, discover the history of a wreck & develop a dive plan to perform a task or tasks on a wreck on each dive from artifact hunting to spearfishing to photography, to some kind mission. Yet, this is recreational.

Most recreational divers have a mission for their dives. I just did a dive in July that was to construct an accurate map of Dutch Springs that is being turned into 3-D software images. We recorded measurements while breathing air at a max depth of 90 feet. My last dive was a cave dive in which the mission was to site-see down to the second restriction in Vortex, but I was also carrying 40 cuft of 50/50 for deco.

Also, am I diving "recreationally" when I dive for fun even if I'm using mixed gases? Am I diving "commercially" when I get paid to take pictures of water screens even if I just need a snorkel? Am I diving technically when I'm teaching an open water class in 20 feet of water because everything I do has an important purpose? Or, is it all just diving?

I believe it was Mike Menundo who first coined the term, "technical diving" in an issue of Aquacorps magazine. I was trying to websearch for his orginal definition, but my search failed to locate it. Technical diving is usually defined as (even though a definition hasn't been agreed upon):

1) Purposely making dives deeper than 130 feet on air
2) Diving any gas or mixtures of gas other than air
3) Diving which requires stage decompression
4) Diving which involves purposely requiring additional tanks to meet all gas needs of a dive
5) Diving in an overhead environment (cave, ice, wreck)
6) Diving using closed or semi-closed rebreathers
7) Any dive assumed by the divers to be beyond their understanding of a "recreational" level dive

Yes, nitrox divers, You ARE techies! Welcome to the club! Although, some divers don't think you are because it's a common gas now.

Since "technical diving" is about attitude, I love the definition someone came up with once that went something like this: A technical dive is any dive in which the participant is willing to die under 200 feet of cold deep black water because it's fun!

"Doing It Right" (DIR) Diving would then be be - finding fun in the failure to complete a technical dive by the aforementioned industry standard.


Trace

[ScubaHawk]

Any dive assumed by the divers to be beyond their understanding of a "recreational" level dive

So what it's saying is: if you think it's a technical dive, it is?
That's not much of a definition, although I don't believe the term even has a group consensus, much less a definition.

[PerroneFord]

Trace,

I realize not all recreational divers are Kens and Barbies. And I am by no means a gung ho type diver. I am somewhat cursed by where I live. The recreational divers you see come to florida are more the "resort certification" type divers or the divers who cringe at the thought of going in the water if it's below 80 degrees or isn't absolutely flat water. Some of these divers carry advanced cards.

Yea, I put a lot of work researching what I do. I enjoy that part of it. Not everyone does. Yea, I'll probably be the guy who doesn't care if there's 3 feet of viz. And yea, I'll be in caves, wrecks, and on deco below 200ft.

It's hugely unfortunate that recreational diving HAS painted such a poor picture of itself, but I feel a lot of it rests squarely on the shoulders of the dive industry. When I look at dumb ideas such as the resort certification, and some of the CFs that walk out of OW class, it's shameful. My dive buddy, God bless him, was with me this week on a trip to Ginnie Springs. While getting ready to go in the ballroom, he pulls out his tables. I told him to put them away. He was about to swim around in 15 feet of water. However he had not even surveyed the dive site even though we walked OVER to the site for 15 minutes and watched people swim. He had lots of trouble getting under and thought he was underweighted even though he had 12 pounds on. The Halcyon representative brought in more weight, and I walked over to see what the problem was. He went back out and couldn't sink. I looked at the guy and said, "his wing is full of air".

Like I said, this is my dive buddy, but it's indicative of the types of new divers we are turning out these days. I see it on the forums. I read about them in the magazines. People learn to do some basic skills, throw on the 25 pounds of weights, learn to run a table, buy a computer and jump on a boat. People who dive once or twice a year on vacation.

I am not trying to sound elitist here. Really it's not my intent. I know there are good recreational divers around. I have some near me. But for every one of them I see, I see a dozen who can't manage the basics. it's scary. It really is.

To me, DIR diving was appealing because of the emphasis on safety, proficiency, and teamwork. Even at the recreational level. Even if I was not pursuing technical diving, which I won't be for a while, it makes a lot of sense. I think NAUI has a lot of the same virtues and is one of the few agencies I feel is progressive in this regard. I would gladly progress with that agency. TDI and IANTD also seem take things more seriously, but like PDIC and others, I have real trouble with some aspects of their training in the technical realm. But that's a discussion for another day.

I just want to get in the water with safe people. And that is hard to do sometimes in florida if you are not around technical divers. At least in my experience, limited as it may be.

[TraceMalin]

TDI and IANTD also seem take things more seriously, but like PDIC and others, I have real trouble with some aspects of their training in the technical realm. But that's a discussion for another day.

Right off the top of my head, I know the following were/are PDIC instructors and were/are GUE instructors:

Jarrod Jablonski - PDIC instructor
Andrew Georgitsis - PDIC instructor trainer/former GUE training director
Bob Sherwood - PDIC instructor trainer
Mauricio Henriques - PDIC instructor
Marcus Werneck - PDIC instructor trainer

Don't you think that if someone walked into their dive centers if they were teaching PDIC classes at the recreational level for a nitrox course that it might just be a little bit more than what they would be getting if they went to take say a TDI or an IANTD nitrox course from divers who've never been exposed to DIR?

What it comes down to is the instructor and not the agency most often.

Trace

[CaptSaaz]

I look at the difference between recreational and tech diving in a simplistic way.

Recreational diving is limited to 130fsw, no overhead enviornments, no decompression, air or nitrox.

Tech diving therefore is deep diving, wreck and cave penetrations, mix gases, decompression dives.

[Walter]

The concept of "technical" diving is not a valid one, in my opinion. One is either diving for fun (recreationally) or diving for work (commercially). There is some overlap. One can enjoy working dives.

Technical diving is an artificial separation that departs no useful information. Adding to the confusion is the issue that folks who do use the term can't agree on a definition.

If I know someone is cave certified, I've learned something about the skill set that person has mastered. If I know someone is trimix certified, I've learned something about their particular skill set. Knowing someone is a technical diver gives me absolutely no information about their skills. Knowing the specialty is sometimes important, knowing they are a technical diver is never relevant. We should all stop using this useless term.

Interesting discussion on the Ken & Barbie vs. GI Joe diver. I think you've over simplified it. It is not a recreational vs. technical (by whatever definition) concept. It's more a function of their OW course. Some programs have watered down their courses, standards have been lowered. These have produced the Ken & Barbie divers to whom you refer. This has been on going since the late 70s, but not all programs have taken that route. Some programs have kept the higher standards and instead have taken the path of actually teaching people how to meet those standards instead of using those standards to weed out the weak as happened all too often in the 60s and early 70s. Now, the Ken & Barbies actually do better in a program with higher standards. Such a program gives them self confidence and turns them into real divers who don't have to follow a dive guide around to feel safe. They become more like GI Joe when diving.

[WreckWench]

I am taking my IANTD Adv. Nitrox and Deep Diver, which is a hell of a lot more thorough than what PADI offers.

Yes it is more thorough...hence the name 'advanced' Nitrox and Deep Diver. Or it is often combined with Staged Decompression.

Yet do you need the 'advanced' course to dive on nitrox?

[PerroneFord]

[quote name='WreckWench' date='Oct 18 2005, 11:08 AM'] [QUOTE]Yet do you need the 'advanced' course to dive on nitrox? [/quote]
I think you do if you want to use Nitrox above 40%. I believe the common gases are 50%, 80/20 (for better or worse) and 100%.

[matts1w]

I have really enjoyed this thread, but why all the contempt for Ken and Barbie Diver? If all one ever wants to do is dive once a year at a Sandals resort on a twenty foot reef with his/her kids why do we scoff at them? If one takes some tennis lessons does he/she have to train like they may one day compete at the US Open? What is wrong with hitting some balls around to get some air, exercise, and have fun?

Where I teach we make it clear that an Open Water certification is not a license to run off all over the world and dive any environment there is. I do, however, think it provides fundamentals to begin to learn to dive, etc.... We continue to provide opportunities for the divers in our club to dive in similar circumstances with continued supervision. We have many who are really not interested in more than mellow, warm, colorful reef dives. They understand their limitations and are willing to pay to have professionals plan and guide their dives. In fact, I might go out on a limb and mention that the dive industry really does need Ken and Barbies as without them.....well..... some might find work, their LDS, and continuing education scarce.

The bottom line is I learned some fundamentals in Open Water class, but I learned to dive through diving, a local club, continuing education, and some experienced divers I made friends with who were willing to let me tag along and took me under their wing.

By the way, tech or DIR does not mean the diver is perfectly trained. I can cite a recent experience where one on our boat sucked through his steel 100 in no time. Boy, was his trim perfect, his gear to "code, " but his ability relax and let the ocean ebb and flow left much to be desired. Man, was he streamlined though.

Edited by matts1w, 18 October 2005 - 11:35 AM.

[PerroneFord]

I have no intent of making this a tec vs rec discussion nor a DIR vs. The World discussion.

Yes, the dive industry needs the Ken and Barbie divers because it's built them and an infrastructure to support them. Now it would be lost without them.

I have absolutely NOTHING against people who choose to jump in the water once or twice a year with a guide and take a dive. More power to them. But that doesn't make them divers in my opinion I don't care what their card says. If I earned a license to race motorcars and then put an instructor in the passenger seat and tooled around a couple times a year, that wouldn't make me a racer.

We can dance around the subject all day if you wish, but the fact is there are a LOT of poorly trained divers out there with C-Cards. And by the way, just because you take DIRF, doesn't mean you PASS DIRF, nor does it mean you are DIR. I could fail cave class 10 times, but no one would call me a cave diver.

And just beause I show up on the boat with doubles, a fancy regulator, and jet fins, doesn't make me a good diver. In fact, I'd probably show up looking like that right now (minus the doubles) and it's likely I'll be the worst diver on the boat.

Right now, I am Ken, looking for a Barbie, and trying to sneak up on GI Joe!

[Diverbrian]

I have really enjoyed this thread, but why all the contempt for Ken and Barbie Diver?  If all one ever wants to do is dive once a year at a Sandals resort on a twenty foot reef with his/her kids why do we scoff at them?  If one takes some tennis lessons does he/she have to train like they may one day compete at the US Open?  What is wrong with hitting some balls around to get some air, exercise, and have fun?

Where I teach we make it clear that an Open Water certification is not a license to run off all over the world and dive any environment there is.  I do, however, think it provides fundamentals to begin to learn to dive, etc....  We continue to provide opportunities for the divers in our club to dive in similar circumstances with continued supervision.  We have many who are really not interested in more than mellow, warm, colorful reef dives.  They understand their limitations and are willing to pay to have professionals plan and guide their dives.  In fact, I might go out on a limb and mention that the dive industry really does need Ken and Barbies as without them.....well..... some might find work, their LDS, and continuing education scarce.

TYhe bottom line is I learned some fundamentals in Open Water class, but I learned to dive through diving, a local club, continuing education, and some experienced divers who were willing to let me tag along and took me under their wing.   

By the way, tech or DIR does not mean the diver is perfectly trained.  I can cite a recent experience where one on our boat sucked through his steel 100 in no time.  Boy, was his trim perfect, his gear to "code, " but his ability relax and let the ocean ebb and flow left much to be desired.  Man, was he streamlined though.

I am in agreement with most of your statement except...

We teach OW divers at our shop as well. They come out with good, but far from perfect buoyancy. If they can keep from disturbing the bottom and minimize their impact on the underwater environment, that is unfortunately ahead of many of our competitors. We have three dive pros counting myself "into" serious "non Ken and Barbie" stuff and we don't discuss that in front of OW students. They don't need to know about that stuff at that phase.

But, our divers will not let anyone plan their dives but them. If they follow a guide, they will be thinking for themselves as well. It is the dive professionals job to be safe themselves and teach good students. If the diver is OW certified, they shouldn't be dependent on a DM for basic things like planning a basic dive. Put simply, following the guide is not a bad thing. I do it all of the time in salt water as I seldom dive that environment and like to see cool stuff with my bottom time. But, being dependent on the dive professional is not a good thing. I call that a "trust-me" dive and they seem to lead to problems.

Shore diving in twenty-five feet of water has its risks (like getting caught in a current and going where you didn't want to go). BTW, that is what I would likely be doing primarily if I lived in SE Florida. It is cheap and how cool is it to veg out at twenty-five feet watching pretty fish for better than two hours.

As well, I have seen divers such as you describe. They learn to practice everything well, but never seem to learn to relax because everything is a contest or class. See our "Too much training?" thread in the dive training forum for that discussion.