Talk:Technical diving

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject SCUBA, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Scuba diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

It is sometimes similar to commercial diving. Nah, not very much so. I'll leave it here until someone can justify this statement.

[edit] Definition

I understand it as diving with a change of breathing gas (excluding O2 during deco), but cannot quickly find a reference to support this. Anyone agree? Finavon 07:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The simplest explanation is that a technical dive is basically a sports dive that goes beyond normal recreational limits. So a change of breathing gas (even just for deco) would be tek diving, but conversely you could do a dive below 40M/130ft or a shallower dive that involves deco stops, which could still be called a tek dive, but without needing a change of breathing gas. I'll try and find a reference in one of my manuals.Rodgerclarke (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the definition be amended with "other than air or standard nitrox". Air is a mix of gases, and standard nitrox (Nitrox I / EAN32 or Nitrox II / EAN36) may be considered recreational already. --AtonX (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy

Dive College Mexico is a close copy of this article, but which way? I suspect it was lifted from wiki, without acknowledgement and cannot be cited as a source. Unless this can be confirmed, then presumably the wiki article is infringing the stated copyright and should be removed. Finavon 22:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parameters

After a fairly vigorous discussion on a message board, I decided to put in some of the areas of disagreement about the definition and borders of what constitutes "technical diving". I know this had edit dispute written all over it, but I have tried to keep in neutrel and cite sources. --Legis (talk - contribs) 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Low visibility: Night diving is a low-visibility diving, yet is clearly a recreational (non-technical) diving, isn't it? --AtonX (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I would tend to agree, but I tried to be inclusionary as to what some consider technical diving. I found at least one agency that categorised "low visibility" diving as technical, although like you I wouldn't normally categorise it as such. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Hard to comment on, if you don't specify (and cite) which agency, and which low visibility... being too inclusionary can also have drawbacks, that we create a myth of oh-fearful-dangerous-technical-diving being anything beyond OWD. :) --AtonX (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Fair play - I'll try and dig out the cite for it - if I can't find it, I'll remove it. Agree about the risks of being too inclusionary. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)