Peacock Line

[simbrooks]

So going past the T (even though it is still the mainline, with something going off to the pothole exit) is not within Intro? I was just running the mainline and not jumping off anywhere as it was one continuous line out to the exit and we realised there was that T going up to the pothole. Again if they take out the connection/T there and you can see OW/cavern/daylight then you can run a line as you are technically in cavern (or so i have been told others have been instructed, but not personally instructed) and so you can do that "jump" with your own line. Its a grey area from what i can see whether that line is left there or not. I still agree with moving the mainline start point back further into the cavern.

 

[H2Andy]

simon, i don't think that would constitute either a jump, gap, or traverse, or
complex navigation. if in doubt, leave a cookie on the exit side of the goldline.

since you're never leaving the gold line, i think you'd be ok.

unfortunately, i've only ever been to Pothole twice, and both times our plan was to
turn at that point, so the issue has never come up (by the way, i'm with
Mike F. on this... i didn't see any daylight from Pothole)

but i am a rank novice at this, and will gladly defer to those who know better

 

[jfoutz]

Looking at the standard in detail, I’m still not entirely convinced that Pothole violates it.

You would not be jumping or gapping (spelling?) to a “secondary passageway,” but merely continuing along the “singular passageway,” staying on the mainline. And I certainly wouldn’t consider it to be “complex navigation,” there’s daylight above. It also wouldn’t be considered an exploration or task oriented dive.

But I really don’t think that this should boil down to a semantics debate; it would be better to have a debate as to what is safe and in the spirit of diving within limits of training and experience. Thoughts from others?

 

[H2Andy]

But I really don’t think that this should boil down to a semantics debate; it would be better to have a debate as to what is safe and in the spirit of diving within limits of training and experience.

not that i disagree with the spirit of your post, but keep in mind that when you're
discussing definitions, you're arguing semantics, by definition (since you're arguing
over the meaning of words)

 

[scubafool]

Damn lawyers, always reminding us of things that we are trying our best to forget.

So just exactly WHY should the mainline in Peacock be moved back?

I don't see the argument that it would encourage divers to stay proficient in reel use. If a cavediver hasn't had to use a reel in a few dives, than they would be well advised to spend some time doing so either in the cavern or OW. The ability to use a reel is a basic, fundamental skill in overhead diving, & someone who is not personally comimitted to becoming & staying proficient with their use does not, IMHO, have any business in an overhead. Trying to force such a diver into "practicing" against their will probably won't do a heck of a lot of good.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Interesting. I've been past pothole lots of times...though it's been a year since I have. Maybe I did but I don't remember seeing daylight...although once there was about a ton of silt falling down through the hole. Either way, I wouldn't consider it OW like passing through a bigger sink.

Have any of you surfaced there? How tight is it. From the surface it looks small. Maybe some one was in there making the mess I saw that time.

 

[vodolaz]

Have any of you surfaced there? How tight is it. From the surface it looks small. Maybe some one was in there making the mess I saw that time.

We considered surfacing there once awhile back, but it's a fairly narrow chimney and didn't seem worth the effort.

You really don't notice Pothole from beneath unless you're already looking for it.

 

[Dan Gibson]

I'm not sure it's just about not being proficient with the use of a reel. It's also about just being plain profficient with buoyancy control and that includes task loading at the same time. I've seen many diver's there that have no business in the cavern zone, much less the cave. It seems like it's one of the dumbing down areas. Got money, have card.

A cave instructor once quoted to me:
"I personally feel that the Gold lines to open water are simply an excuse for bad training. Instead of fixing the problem,(making better cave divers with better buoyancy), they are trying to keep folks from having to run reels. I am very saddened to see that what used to be the best trained most elite group of divers in the world, is now one of the worst."

Needless to say this instructor was very disappointed with the decision to bring the lines out into OW. I just happen to agree with him.

There really isn't that good of a reason no to cut them back and use the reel. Some say there would be a web of lines. Only if people don't learn to run them properly (i.e. experience) and learn to deal with line ettiquette when someone else is in the system. One can also argue, too many groups at once isn't good either. Can you imagine how bad viz would be in the Waterhole tunnel if more than a couple of teams were in there at the same time. Maybe people should use some common sense and wait for a team to exit before causing a big traffic jam.

btw, this is a pet peeve of mine. When you are the first person in the system, don't tie into the end of the primary line. Leave some space for teams to follow. The second team ties in behind the first, not in front. It's really hard to do that when the first line crowds the end of the line.

I certainly hope no one needs to have explained to them that you run your line under the first teams and not above. Also, please run your line near the side of the tunnel if possible, not straight down the middle. Maybe this is why people complain about the nasty spider webs. It's poor line placement. Beginning cave divers need as much practice as they can to learn how to read the cave and place the line optimally. Not running a reel just cheats these divers out of this learning process.

Damn lawyers, always reminding us of things that we are trying our best to forget.

So just exactly WHY should the mainline in Peacock be moved back?

I don't see the argument that it would encourage divers to stay proficient in reel use. If a cavediver hasn't had to use a reel in a few dives, than they would be well advised to spend some time doing so either in the cavern or OW. The ability to use a reel is a basic, fundamental skill in overhead diving, & someone who is not personally comimitted to becoming & staying proficient with their use does not, IMHO, have any business in an overhead. Trying to force such a diver into "practicing" against their will probably won't do a heck of a lot of good.

 

[simbrooks]

Maybe people should use some common sense and wait for a team to exit before causing a big traffic jam.

The few times i have been to Peacock around the main spring the car park is pretty much stacked full with around 15-20 cars/trucks, there isnt much more parking space. Most folks come one diver/vehicle, so at most you are going to have 10 teams in the area of which at least 1 or 2 groups are usually up and either setting up or tearing down gear. Then you have the option of running either of the two main routes from the entrance, so apart from where do all these lines tie off, there shouldnt be much spidersweb on the inside of the cavern.

 

[MikeFerrara]

The only place I've noticed a problem with the number of lines is the crevice droping down to the pothole line. Space is limited and there isn't much you can do about it...except that there a back way to get there without going down the crevice. I've never seen any one else use it and we've always had it all to ourselves. It requires sort of a long primary run and a jump but it's kind of neat.