Dunderburg

[DudleyNMU]

Dunderburg is a fantastic wreck!...I dive her several times a summer and will be on it this comming weekend and plan on diving it labor day weekend as well. Looks like whitefish was a good trip from the pics. IMHO...In water experience goes a long ways when it comes to diving these deeper wrecks....I have been in the water with alot of "fin chewers" who think they know everything because they took a class!...And i have been in the water with some fantastic divers who had nothing more that Padi Advanced or less and would totally trust diving these deeper wrecks. But thats me...Glad you had a great dive! Keep it up get some tech training eventually because there are some Awesome wrecks under 130'!!! Good luck and Dive Safe...

 

[DonnyGreen]

To set the record straight nobody took this dive lightly. We have been working our way to diving the Dunderburg over the last several years by diving deeper and deeper wrecks (Regina,Mary Alice B, North Star, New York, etc.). The dive plan was to go to the "gator" take a quick picture and then accend back above the deck and watch our no-deco and be back on the anchor line when the first person hit 2000 PSI. I ended the dive with 1653 PSI with a stop at 66' for 1 1/2 mins. another stop at 33' for 2 min. and then 15' for 6 mins. As for setting your computer and adding extra depth for fresh water, I think you got it backwards. Salt water is denser than fresh so it will exert more pressure, and if I remember right salt water is 33'= 1 At. and fresh water is 34'=1 At. The computers depth sensor is a pressure sensor so it doesn't make a diference if it is fresh,salt or air the pressure on the sensor is what it will read. For example it will read 33' when your are actually at 34' fresh water because the pressure is 1 At.

You've spent the "last several years" training for this dive and the deepest wreck you can list is the New York? What sort of training did you do on these dives? The speculation about your plan/computer using fsw vs. ffw is valid. Many computers don't have settings for ffw (thus calculate in, yes denser, fsw...meaning that you are deeper than your computer is reading b/c fresh water is less dense) and it was simply asked (and originally unanswered) if you had accounted for it. As for experience, I have plenty of diving experience in the Lakes. As we all know l, it’s all we've got up in this part of the country. So it’s a dive trip to a coast, a dive in the Lakes, or dive any of the numerous quarries in the area.
Rather than acknowledge that this is a much more "technical" dive than many of the more frequented wrecks chartered to (ie: the Regina: 75', Alice B: 65', North Star: 90', or the New York: 110'), you chose to get bent and argue the opinion that the Dundenburg is in fact a recreational dive.
In fairness to the numerous other readers of this board, it is misleading to dub the Dundenburg as a "recreational" dive, and it is not only fair, but necessary to remind people, who may not know the dangers involved with diving deep, cold waters, that planning a dive outside know guidelines and training is dangerous. And while there is no magic that happens at 130' vs 131', it is the logic behind planning a dive without proper training and equipment that, as stated before, again and again leads to trouble. If you want to do a technical dive, or any other type diving that you have not been trained for, get the proper training first.

 

[b1gcountry]

Like Doug said, I'm just happy someone is posting about a GL dive instead of a dive in some quarry somewhere. There's nothing magical that happens when you put on a set of doubles. It does not make you a better diver. It will not give you better buoyancy or gas planning abilities. Even having a tech card in your wallet doesn't mean you can do a 130' dive safely.

None of us were there. No one knows their dive plan.

Tom

 

[tbeindit]

You've spent the "last several years" training for this dive and the deepest wreck you can list is the New York? What sort of training did you do on these dives? The speculation about your plan/computer using fsw vs. ffw is valid. Many computers don't have settings for ffw (thus calculate in, yes denser, fsw...meaning that you are deeper than your computer is reading b/c fresh water is less dense) and it was simply asked (and originally unanswered) if you had accounted for it. As for experience, I have plenty of diving experience in the Lakes. As we all know l, it’s all we've got up in this part of the country. So it’s a dive trip to a coast, a dive in the Lakes, or dive any of the numerous quarries in the area.
Rather than acknowledge that this is a much more "technical" dive than many of the more frequented wrecks chartered to (ie: the Regina: 75', Alice B: 65', North Star: 90', or the New York: 110'), you chose to get bent and argue the opinion that the Dundenburg is in fact a recreational dive.
In fairness to the numerous other readers of this board, it is misleading to dub the Dundenburg as a "recreational" dive, and it is not only fair, but necessary to remind people, who may not know the dangers involved with diving deep, cold waters, that planning a dive outside know guidelines and training is dangerous. And while there is no magic that happens at 130' vs 131', it is the logic behind planning a dive without proper training and equipment that, as stated before, again and again leads to trouble. If you want to do a technical dive, or any other type diving that you have not been trained for, get the proper training first.

Is it a traditional "recreational" dive? Probably not, if you dive it as a "recreational" dive it is a deep one, definately right on the edge of technical. No one's denying that fact that it is a deep and has many dangers, but that doesn't mean you can't make it a "recreational" dive.
Like I stated several times, it all first depends on your definition of "technical." To some people it's below 130 to others it's mixed gas diving and to others, including me, it's when you enter decompression.
Like I stated, and you agreed, no "magic" happens at 130 so I don't see how you can say "As soon as a diver crosses 130 it is a technical dive," because you could do as we did, go down for a short period of time and do a "bounce" dive (Contrary to the term there is no accelerated swimming or shooting to the surface).
Next, we NEVER got bent and I have no plans to, we conducted a safe dive and all had over 1000 psi at the surface and were FAR FROM getting bent.
Also, your depths of the wrecks are very inaccurate, add about 10 feet to the New York, Mary Alice B 65? That's easily a 90 foot dive, about 100 if you go to the sand.
I agree to your last statement, going beyond your training, experience, and equipment is asking for trouble and that's why I'm happy we didn't.

 

[StreetDoctor]

Rock bottom for a 130' dive with a single HP120 is 1700psi without travel time. So if you encounter an OOG emergency at 130' and ascend to the surface directly assuming you're well trained at shooting bags you need a minimum 1500psi to make your deep stop and safety stop. If you need to travel back to an anchor line and we guesstimate 6 min of travel your rock bottom would then be 3300psi.

I'm glad you enjoyed your dive and your planning put your dive within your own personal safety limits. Some people choose to dive more risky than others (not saying that you were) as long as you plan your dive and dive your plan. Which you say you did. We're all adults and there are no scuba police. Your pictures look great and I'd love to make those dives some day.

 

[DOkie]

In all fairness to the other readers on the board, personally it's never in my dive plan to "get bent" when I go past 130'. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it's never in anyone else's plan, but I'd have to ask around to make sure.... At least I didn't hear that conversation yet again this past weekend when we were all tied up to a wreck.... What in the world would possess you proclaim a statement like that?

It's back to the debate of technical diving again. At what magic circumstance does a dive turn technical? Since you have "plenty of diving experience in the Lakes", maybe you can open your "intro to tech diving" brochure and explain this to me. Is it depth, or a combination as you stated of depth and water temp. What if you add in visibility? Wreck penetration? Current? I would like an exact definition to further my understanding. For example... If you pick depth and water temp, what if you add in zero viz because a tech diver didn't use the proper kick for the dive site (it is kind of fun to stick one on the line while you go look for their buddy). If experience doesn't count for anything, then can you explain how my experience led me to better understand the situation and find the lost diver.

And why pick the Dunderberg? What about the Eber Ward? The Jenni Belle? The Milwaukee? The Northerner? Etc. Etc. Etc... If you're adimant about the fresh water equivalent, then there's a bunch out there that need warning signs stuck to the bouys... Not that I've ever dove one, but I'm sure there are quarries out there that would qualify. Also, if it's depth, then what if I'm at a depth of 15 feet yet I'm 800 feet back in a cave? Is that a tech dive?

I just don't understand. Here you have a diver who obviously has wanted to dive the Dunderberg for quite some time and took steps to make sure they had a safe and well planned dive and you throw at them all this garbage about how in your infinite wisdom it was a poor and dangerous decision. If that's the case, once you get your tech diving cert, there's a couple of wrecks I can recommend that are well within recreational limits (but only if I can be there).

Finally, I learned my definition of a tech dive a long time ago when I ran into an old timer who gave me his definition of tech diving "you can't define a tech dive by the type of gear they wear, gas they are breathing, or depth of the dive... It's a dive where you have to have a predetermined dive plan that you must adhere to..." Sounds like these guys did a good job.

 

[CMAN]

Rather than acknowledge that this is a much more "technical" dive than many of the more frequented wrecks chartered to (ie: the Regina: 75', Alice B: 65', North Star: 90', or the New York: 110'), you chose to get bent and argue the opinion that the Dundenburg is in fact a recreational dive.
I really wish you would read and understand what I wrote before you reply. I NEVER said the "Dunderburg is in fact a recreational dive". Go back and re-read post #16. As for the computers, they will figure the nitrogen loading by the depth reading (meaning the actual depth in fresh water will be deeper but the loading will be shallower, however the amount is very little (132 FSW= 136 FFW) and with the cold you have to actualy add 10 of depth since the computers don't. So yes we did figure extra loading that is why we do a very slow accent rate with the deep stops and extra safty stop. As for the "training", what I wrote (again re-read it) was we "worked" our way to this dive by doing the progressively deeper wrecks. If you wish to call that training then so be it. Each of these wrecks have their own quirks, for example the North Star is deep, cold and murky (at least everytime I dove it) and it very easy to get disoriented. The New York (over 120' by the way) is always cold (38-46 everytime I dove her) and can get silted-up if you don't stay off the decks. The Mary Alice B (93' by the way) I have seen vis as good as 50-60 ft. and as bad as less than 10 ft. So in my opinion just "doing" these dives is training.

 

[b1gcountry]

The Mary Alice B (93' by the way) I have seen vis as good as 50-60 ft. and as bad as less than 10 ft. So in my opinion just "doing" these dives is training.

No, it is Experience, a thing almost unheard of on Scubaboard. Gotta love internet Diving.

Tom

PS, I was on the Rouse Simmons last weekend, where were you?

 

[tbeindit]

No, it is Experience, a thing almost unheard of on Scubaboard. Gotta love internet Diving.

Tom

PS, I was on the Rouse Simmons last weekend, where were you?

That's the hilarious thing about a lot of people on this board, not all of course. I'm not trying to insult ScubaBoard in any way, it's a great site and has a lot of useful information, but some people get delusional on this board about real diving.
I constantly hear people talk about "card collectors" i.e. people who just go out trying to rack up certifications and get different cards, but don't really get experience before doing it, but when a group of divers do a dive that is within their experience, training, and equipment, they get bombarded with complaints and griping about how "dangerous" they are.
Personally, I don't look that much at cards to see how "good" a diver is, I wait and see the first time I dive with a person, normally at least after a couple dives you get a good feeling of how comfortable the person is underwater, not because they have a logbook filled with certification cards.

 

[b1gcountry]

I like seeing some cards. I don't like seeing a continuous stream of certs with no real dives in between. There's a nice medium between not being confident enough not to dive outside the system, and being so overconfident that you feel there is no system good enough to teach you anything.

I'm not saying anyone in this thread falls into either category above. Like you said, I'm not going to trash or praise anyone unless I've had a few dives with them (well, except in special cases where its obvious).

Tom