30 replies to this topic

[jextract]

we'll see where diving in the lake gets me this summer.  i may find i love waddling around with 87 lbs of gear slowly crushing the life out of what intact vertebral discs i have left, jumping into cold murky water, and experiencing massive cerebral hypertension from bilateral jugular constriction that will lead to amurosis fugi, disorientation and death.

but i'll try anything once.

TF, am I feeling your pain today!

But you have such a way with words that you make it sound almost ... tolerable.

[Walter]

Jeez, no wonder Marvel's over there bangin' her head against the wall!

This isn't my day. That one zoomed over my head too. Brian finally walked me through the other one via PM's. Sometimes I'm dense.

[Coo's Toe]

There's no such thing as "tech."

That may be taking semantics a bit far, don't you think?

All diving is "tech" if you consider that we're trusting our lives to a pneumatic step down regulator and a tank of compressed air in a very alien environment. All diving is "rec" if you consider that we do it non-professionally for enjoyment.

I think you're just muddying the waters when you say "there's no such thing".

[canuckdiver]

There's no such thing as "tech."

I think you're just muddying the waters when you say "there's no such thing".

LOL, walters good at that!

but, it's all in good nature, right walter?

[Walter]

The separation "technical diving" is not, IMHO, a valid separation. It is artificial, useless and actually misleading to refer to any diving as "technical." It serves no valid purpose.

[Coo's Toe]

Technical diving is a term used to describe all diving methods that exceed the limits imposed on depth and/or immersion time for recreational scuba diving. Technical diving often involves the use of special gas mixtures ( other than compressed air ) for breathing. The type of gas mixture used is determined either by the maximum depth planned for the dive, or by the length of time that the diver intends to spend underwater. While the recommended maximum depth for conventional scuba diving is 130 ft, technical divers may work in the range of 170 ft to 350 ft, sometimes even deeper.

Technical diving almost always requires one or more mandatory decompression "stops" upon ascent, during which the diver may change breathing gas mixes at least once. Decompression stops are necessary to allow gases that have accumulated in the diver's tissues ( primarily nitrogen ) to be released in a slow and controlled manner. If an individual exceeds the limits of time and/or depth for recreational diving, and/or ascends too quickly, large bubbles can form in the tissues, joints, and bloodstream.

This is but one of many references to a distinction between recreational diving and technical diving easily found in books or a quick google search online. I won't try to quote them all. IANTD, TDI, GUE, NOAA, PADI, NAUI, and I'm sure countless other diving organizations do feel a distinction is necessary between the realms of technical diving and traditional sport diving.

Are there grey areas where the distinction is blurred? Certainly. Wearing doubles on a dive doesn't mean it is a "technical" dive. Breathing nitrox doesn't make you a "tech" diver, even though technically you're breathing a gas mixture other than air. There are even classes now certifying you to use tri-ox within recreational depth limits, so even breathing helium doesn't in and of itself make one a "technical" diver. Advanced dives running lines inside of wrecks fall into the grey area, certainly. Using rebreathers falls into the grey area. Recent years have seen an explosion of new devices and techniques available to recreational divers that would have been considered exclusively confined to the "technical" realm a decade ago. So granted, the grey area is getting bigger and bigger.

Does that grey area invalidate the distinction? No. In fact, it might be a good reason to make the distinction, and really strive to define it better, instead of muddying the waters.

Do you need to have a long hose, or a backplate and wings, to dive a set of doubles? No. But Brian is not incorrect when he says these are required for technical training. I would agree that not everyone straps on a set of double tanks with the intention of doing anything more than recreational diving within no-stop limits, but for those that do, a long hose would be considered standard equipment. Most people have different visual pictures in their minds when you say "scuba gear" and "tech gear", and most divers do picture a much more advanced skillset when the subject of "tech" diving is being discussed.

We assign values to words, and by doing so, give our language meaning. This allows us to exchange ideas in a meaningful way. Without distinctions like "technical" and "recreational", many of the discussions we have in a forum like this would have very little meaning at all.

The separation "technical diving" is not, IMHO, a valid separation. It is artificial, useless and actually misleading to refer to any diving as "technical." It serves no valid purpose.

To me, this is like saying "The seperation between soccer and golf is not a valid seperation. It is useless and actually misleading, because both games use balls and are played on grassy fields". Yes, I'm exaggerating a bit to stress my point, but you can see where I'm going with it. The distinction between technical diving and recreational diving is certainly valid, and hardly misleading. I for one would like to see you explain further why you seem to feel otherwise...

[triggerfish]

[quote name='jextract' date='May 12 2004, 01:51 PM'] i'll try anything once. [/QUOTE]
TF, am I feeling your pain today!

[/quote]
another evening of pharmaceuticals washed down with red wine, huh?

[Walter]

I never said the term wasn't being used. I said it's useless. There's a difference.

To me, this is like saying "The seperation between soccer and golf is not a valid seperation. It is useless and actually misleading, because both games use balls and are played on grassy fields".

No. It's more like separating all sports that use a ball from all those that don't and lumping them together because they are all "the same." You are correct, golf and soccer are very different, why lump them together? That's what having a "technical" designation does.

My point isn't that there are no areas of diving that shouldn't be separate, but that those areas don't belong together. A caver isn't qualified to dive wrecks. A wreck diver isn't qualified to dive mixed gases. A mixed gas diver isn't qualified to dive caves. Of course there are people who are trained in more than one area, just like some soccer players also play golf. Having "technical" as a designation leads people to believe that expertise in one area means expertise in another.

If I tell you, "Mike is a cave diver," it gives you some information about Mike. If I tell you, "Mike is a technical diver," it gives you no useful information about Mike.

[triggerfish]

If I tell you, "Mike is a cave diver," it gives you some information about Mike. If I tell you, "Mike is a technical diver," it gives you no useful information about Mike.

give me an hour with mike and i'll tell you all you ever wanted to know about him.

[Coo's Toe]

Honestly Walter, sometimes your logic eludes me...

If I tell you, "Mike is a cave diver," it gives you some information about Mike. If I tell you, "Mike is a technical diver," it gives you no useful information about Mike.

Both phrases tell me about as much about Mike, and both phrases are equally generalized. Okay, so I know Mike is diving in caves. Okay, I know Mike is planning dives beyond the traditional depth and time limits of recreational diving. Both impart useful information, but certainly don't tell me all there is to know about Mike, his skills, or his plans for specific dives. Neither phrase is useless to me because it is general in nature.

give me an hour with mike and i'll tell you all you ever wanted to know about him.

While I'm certainly taking TF's wisdom out of context, she has a valid point. To understand Mike any better after labeling him with broad generalizations such as Cave Diver or Tech Diver, you're going to have to spend an hour with him discussing specifics.

[Walter]

Mike is a cave diver

Okay, so I know Mike is diving in caves.

Exactly.

Mike is a technical diver

Okay, I know Mike is planning dives beyond the traditional depth and time limits of recreational diving.

No you don't. Mike may be a cave diver who does not exceed traditional depth and time limits of recreational diving. You don't know squat about mike.

[triggerfish]

While I'm certainly taking TF's wisdom out of context, she has a valid point.
.

oh my god, i'm so sorry!!!!

i never meant to make a valid point!!!!

[CaptainRonPdx]

Im not too sure I understand the point you are not trying to make Walter. Why do you feel the term Technical is inappropriate? or non descriptive? what?

The actual term, when referred to diving, is supposed to mean any dive, whereby a diver is exceeding 130 feet of water, or intending staged decompression, or penetrating beyond the visibility of an exit whether wreck or cave. All agencies use this defintion. If you are doing these things without the proper training or equipment then you are not a technical diver, your just stupid, or maybe ignorant that your being stupid. If you are using the proper equipment and prepare for the dive with proper training, then you might be considered a technical diver. If you are doing it for recreation, then you are a recreational tech diver, if you are doing it for monetary compensation, then you are a commercial diver.
I am a technical diver, my qualifacations include wreck penetration, planned stage decompression with multiple deco gasses, mixed gasses including helium to depths greater than 300fsw as well as closed circut rebreather using trimix. BUT, Im not a cave diver, never been trained to be one. I still wont go past 75 feet of penetration in a cave.
Yes Im a commercial diver too, because I get paid to do salvage work, it aint glamorous, but it pays very well.

[idive2]

87 lbs of gear slowly crushing the life out of what intact vertebral discs i have left, jumping into cold murky water, and experiencing massive cerebral hypertension from bilateral jugular constriction that will lead to amurosis fugi, disorientation and death.

along those same lines, I saw a guy slip and go down on the boat deck wearing
a set of doubles, it was not pretty, coulda happened anyway but i'm sure the extra 25 lbs or so on his back didn't help. It was a deeper dive and maybe he had planned some extended bottom time with a deco stop but he was back on the boat
before my group and I wondered, why the doubles ?

Kevin Falconer Fort Myers, FL

[Diverbrian]

I routinely use doubles for most dives anymore.

If the dives are shallow, I don't have to worry about running them up to get refilled anytime and I am covered if anything happens underwater. If the dives are deep, well, the extra gas capacity is nice. Also, I am now used to them and most rigs with singles seem "off balance" to me now. I have talked to several cavers and they don't even own a single tank. They have doubled everything that they own.

Having said all of that, if the dive site involves a treacherous hike or is simply too long a walk, I will opt for my single 120's for obvious reasons.