Talk:Technical diving

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Loujingyuand. Peer reviewers: Sphyrnidae76.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Similar to commercial diving

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

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Technical diving. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090829200712/http://www.bluebeyond.com.au:80/modx/bluebeyond-dive-deep-air-is-stupidity.html to http://www.bluebeyond.com.au/modx/bluebeyond-dive-deep-air-is-stupidity.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A proposal for restructuring and simplification

Dear folks; for a general reader seeking information on technical diving, we have too much and too vague information here. We spend more time on volatile opinions as to what who thinks exactly tech diving is, and fail to explain the core concept. The essence is that, as opposed to recreational diving, technical requires substantial learning, planning, equipment, because you can't just get out of the water if any problem occurs.

I suggest we eliminate the bulk of the boundaries, we focus on this point, and expand on what that means. We can keep the current table as a concise and immediate reference of what tec diving means. I suggest we organise the content as follows:

• the principle: tec diving is diving that prevents immediate return to the surface
• what forms this can take (some examples)
  • deco
  • caves
  • wrecks
• what the consequences are
  • gas planning
  • dive planning (depths, time, stops)
  • equipment (redundancy, standardisation, tech items like light, reels, markers, stages etc)
  • training (emergency scenarios, limits, lack of standards) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mijio (talk • contribs) 15:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• why do people take such risks recreationally (thrill, training, seeing exceptional places)

This is what I would expect as a reader and the stable concepts. Comments?

Mijio (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has a core policy of requiring sources for its content. So please state what sources you are using for your propositions.

I disagree fundamentally with your definition, because some tech diving is done under conditions where immediate return to the surface is possible - for example the early parts of a deep dive beyond normal recreational limits.

Decompression diving may be taught as part of normal recreational diving. A 30 minute multi-level dive to 30 metres may incur some deco penalty, but when done in warm tropical waters with massive visibility, a competent buddy and good equipment is no more a "technical" dive than taking a novice into Stoney Cove at 7 metres.

Many wreck dives involve no penetration of the wreck and therefore don't impose the ceiling that you seem to want to use to define technical diving.

Technical diving is not about equipment. I regularly carry each of the items you mention on dives that would be considered normal recreational dives by the average diver. How would you manage night diving without a light? or deploying an SMB without a reel?

I'm sorry but technical diving is far too nebulous a concept to be pigeon-holed in the way you suggest, and divers' view of what constitutes it changes over time. I can remember when nitrox was considered "technical" diving by some, yet it has become a mainstay of the recreational diving scene nowadays. --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"Technical" refers to the extra knowledge you are required to acquire and apply for performing the dive. A dive planned to provide immediate access to the surface at all times is no technical dive, because no such consideration is required. The "early part" of a deep dive that ultimately exceeds limits and removes that access is the "early part of a technical dive". Similarly, a recreational dive that was meant to provide immediate return to surface and accidentally erred into deco was an erred recreational dive.

The text as it is now leaves the reader clueless as to why "technical diving" is different from "recreational". Giving a fundamental description, and possibly mentioning that there are peripheral exceptions to that, will help the reader get the concept. --Mijio (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Technical could be considered as a marketing buzzword coined to sell extra training. There's nothing wrong in that, but it's untrue that a clear delineation exists between what is termed "recreational" and what is termed "technical". You need extra knowledge (and equipment) to perform a night dive, but that doesn't make it "technical". If I plan a square profile dive to 27 metres for 30 minutes on air, I do a 5 minute decompression stop. That's not "technical" and I require no extra knowledge to use that part of my tables. I also have immediate access to the surface for the first 20 minutes. If I plan a dive for 20 minutes at 27 metres, but a problem causes me to exceed the bottom time by a couple of minutes, I simply do the required decompression stop of 5 minutes. Your "erred recreational dive" requires exactly the same knowledge to perform as your "technical" dive, so how does that fit with your definition?

The reason why we have the present text is because there is no clear distinction between "technical diving" and "recreational". There is more like a spectrum of increased risk and a commensurate need for further training, experience, equipment, etc. to compensate for the increased risk.

What source do you propose using for the text you want to insert? --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a clear and definite distinction between technical diving and other forms of recreational diving. Also the distinction is changing through time. Some diving is more technical than other diving, whether it is recreational or professional, and no matter how much some people would like to draw a line between the different aspects of diving, it is not a black and white issue, but more a range of greys, and the available reliable references reflect this problem. As far as I know there is no widely accepted reliable reference distinguishing clearly and unambiguously between technical and non-technical recreational diving, in the same way that there is no clear and unambiguous line between safe and unsafe decompression. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please cite a published source, or a logical proof. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Mixtures to reduce oxygen toxicity

Our present text states "Breathing normal air (with 21% oxygen) at depths greater than 180 feet (55 m) creates a high risk of acute oxygen toxicity", sourced to Simon Mitchell's 2004 paper on Technical Diving. However Mitchell does not suggest that depths greater than 55 metres expose the air diver to a "high" risk of acute oxygen toxicity. The nearest he comes to that is the following on page 59:

A P02 of 1.4 bar is widely considered a safe limit for underwater use, though most agencies consider brief exposures to 1.6 bar in an "extreme exposure" to be tolerable. Much beyond this and the risk of toxicity begins to rise precipitously.

Considering that it is on the same page as the NOAA oxygen exposure tables, which indicate a limit of 45 minutes for a single exposure to 1.6 bar PO₂, there can be little doubt that Mitchell considers that "much above" 1.6 bar PO₂ is where the risk starts to rise rapidly. This is in accord with Professor Donald's experiments during WWII which led to a limit of 2.0 bar PO₂ being recommended for many years post-war until the current more conservative limits were introduced comparatively recently. As an oxygen partial pressure of 1.6 bar occurs at 66 metres when breathing air, I don't think we can justify the present text in our article. I would suggest that "A diver breathing normal air (with 21% oxygen) will be exposed to increasing risk of central nervous system oxygen toxicity at depths greater than about 180 feet (55 m)". From a statistical point of view, there are just too few incidents of CNS OxTox reliably attributable to PO₂ of 1.6 or below for anyone to suggest that there is a "high risk" at such partial pressures. --RexxS (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite agree. Will change to comply. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Done • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Technical diving. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827054512/http://www.liquidtravel.org:80/transitioning-to-technical-diving.html to http://www.liquidtravel.org/transitioning-to-technical-diving.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

B-Class review

B

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. Some more references needed Still need a few, but I'm going to call this good enough Y The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. Looks OK Y The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. Looks OK Y The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Looks OK Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Looks OK Y The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Looks OK Y

More citations needed. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Good enough for B-class • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Technical diving. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.padi.com/english/common/courses/rec/continue/deepdiver.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160531063908/http://www.alertdiver.com/nitrox to http://www.alertdiver.com/nitrox
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221012251/http://diversalertnetwork.org/medical/articles/article.asp?articleid=29 to http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/articles/article.asp?articleid=29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Unnamed groups of agencies replacement

Hey Wikipedians

I have found there are still some unnamed groups of agencies existed in the articles so I am trying to replace those "Some agencies" with actual agency names soon with additional resources. Loujingyuand (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Loujingyuand: I don't think that's a good idea. There are presently 153 recreational agencies and 18 technical agencies named in List of diver certification organizations. How would you select the names of the organisations to include in that table in Technical diving #Scope (and which ones to omit), and what benefit would that bring to the reader? --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)