Posted by Clinton Bauder on April 11, 2000 at 13:55:54:
In Reply to: Re: Tech diving posted by MHK on April 11, 2000 at 12:19:30:
Sorry, no offense meant (though re-reading my post I can see that it sounded that way). Need to stop posting things when I'm having a bad day at work... ;-)
>You seem to be the one how is trying to impress people by posting your *regularly* diving to 170'.
Touche. And yes, regularly rather overstates my qualifications as well.
>BTW, what gas are you breathing at 170??
I'm breathing air at 170. A Trimix class is up next.
> I was trying to generate discussion points not impress anyone.
Same here, but I still don't understand the need for a broad definition. Lots of kinds of diving fall outside of the bounds of a basic Open Water certification. Are all of these things "Tech Diving?". If so does saying you are doing "Tech Diving" really communicate anything useful or is it just jargon?
Obviously DMs and Instructors need to be clear on what is covered by their insurance and the Standards and Policies of their agency for the class or activity in question. These things do need to be completely specified and not merely with a "Tech" label. I think my point is that each kind of diving has its own requirements and definitions. I'm trained for some kinds of diving which might be termed tech but I certainly would have no business venturing inside of a cave or the Andrea Doria and I know it. I think it's dangerous to group these various diffenent activities under one name. People shouldn't think of themselves as Tech or Not. They should evaluate each dive against their own training and experience.
Sorry again if I sounded chippy.
Clinton