Posted by Michael J. Black on September 26, 19102 at 00:19:22:
In Reply to: Re: Definition of Technical Dive posted by Brady Schickinger on September 25, 19102 at 17:11:47:
A uniform definition of technical dive would be
helpful in future instruction, and the definition
used by DAN is the best I've seen. Opinions vary
enough already among technical divers, and a
well-considered definition is in order. I think
this is what Michael Menduno had in mind when he
coined the term in 1991, to set technical diving
apart from recreational. Thanks for the article,
and good luck with future issues.
: I am the author of the article you reference on The Deadeye (www.thedeadeye.com). Thank you for reading the article and checking out the first issue of the magazine.
: There are some problems with DAN's definition (see below) so I have used a definition more agreed upon by the technical diving community and technical training agencies.
: First, not all dives below 130' can be considered technical. Many divers using a computer will reach depths between 130 and 150 feet for a minute or two and not have a decompression obligation. BSAC in Britain teaches recreational (no-decompression diving) to depths below 130'.
: Second, many divers are now getting the basic open water certifications on EANx. It doesn't seem right to count a dive to 60' on EANx 36 as a technical dive.
: Third, recreational divers will often dive in a cavern or through the holds of a ship. I don't think many tech divers would consider this limited penetration as "technical"
: Finally, some technical divers are doing their otherwise technical dives without special training or equipment.
: Each of DAN's four points alone doesn't make a dive "technical" yet a dive can be "technical" without meeting all four.