Strobe dropping?

[CAPTAIN SINBAD]

There is a great video of John Chatterton entering Andria Doria without running the line and then leaving his strobes to find his way out. On his way back the strobe fails to light up. Anyone else in his position may have been dead but not JC cuz he is DA man!

Anyway, how many of advanced wreck divers use strobes instead of line? My understanding is that most agencies strictly enforce running a line. Is it common practice in wreck diving community to enter without lines and just drop flashing strobes to find the way back?

 

[northernone]

The idea of progressive penetration rather than running a line has a following in the wreck diving community. Knowing how to navigate out again by understanding the wrecks structure and "landmarks". Haven't seen strobes but I've seen glow sticks used. I am not much of a wreck diver due to lack of big wrecks so far but do cave dive. Continuous line is a solid guideline for caves.

What's the film, I'd be interested.

 

[_Ralph]

Strobes or other light up markers don't give me the warm and fuzzies when they don't work and your trying to find them on the way back like a line does ....


_R

 

[Doby45]

I don't think even @Chatterton would recommend anyone going into a wreck like this without significant prior experience. As you can tell from his narration he has been in this wreck numerous times and had an actual plan. So basically, I am saying don't look at this documentary by Chatterton as an endorsement for no-line wreck diving.

 

[dberry]

In his Adv. Wreck course JC stressed a multi-tool approach to penetration that included both pen line and strobes. He did express the opinion that a pen line isn't always the best (or only) choice in every situation. One point he demonstrated was how a strobe placed in one location might be visible from a different compartment later in the wreck exploration. This isn't too hard to imagine when exploring a multi-level wreck with many compartments connected by many passageways, but is probably less relevant in caves. And yes, he did talk about progessive penetration. He demonstrated this by having us find our way back up to the wheelhouse while wearing a blackout mask (after having run the route 2-3 times previously while running and removing lines.) Part of the point was to stress how important it is to develop a good memory map of the route "just in case". It was a little embarassing how easy it was to turn into the wrong compartment, which could get you hopelessly lost in a low-vis situation. (Which was part of the point of the exercise.)

 

[DevonDiver]

Technical wreck (i.e. penetration) divers should be trained in...and employ...protocols to conduct NO-VIZ egress from the wreck.

How would a strobe assist a NO-VIZ exit?

The only reason I can see not to lay a guideline... is that you don't have a skillset to easily or competently lay a guideline.

There's something immensely reassuring about knowing that the line between your fingers leads you to assured survival. I see no valid reasons to discard that reassurance.

Strobes as an additional safety factor, on top of the guideline... sure, why not?

Progressive penetration.... yes... on a guideline. Learn the wreck, learn the layout... but retain that ASSURANCE of a safe escape route. It's WAY to easy to get turned around and follow the wrong path when relying on visual memory in times of stress and lost visibility.

 

[CAPTAIN SINBAD]

I chatted with John and he said something like " most agencies teach you to do a cave dive inside a wreck. What would you do if the line gets cut?" He said that he teaches simple waypoint navigation and multi-tool approach. I did not have enough knowledge to interpret what that meant but my understanding was that wrecks may not lend themselves to a line just like caves do. In caves there is usually long linear penetration and a guideline will work best for that. If you are entering a wreck in which you are going up the stairs and the line has to go over fallen cabinets and up through multiple decks then it may be as "re-assuring" as it is to cave divers.

At least that is the impression I got from John Chatterton but the mistake could very well be at my end in understanding him.

 

[DevonDiver]

A severed line in a wreck would only put you into the same scenario as entering the wreck without the line.

This is why guideline should be used in conjunction with progressive penetration.

Its only a small sample... me, my dives, people I've dived with... , but I've never seen a severed line in a wreck.

Having said that, we're very sensitive in contact with the line, and it's very carefully laid.

I can imagine ham-fisted divers, or those using a guideline as a crutch for weak dive skills, may encounter severe educational guidelines with more frequency?

 

[DevonDiver]

The idea of progressive penetration rather than running a line has a following in the wreck diving community.

I'd suggest it was a very minority following... quite limited geographically. It's something I've only ever heard from NE USA wreck divers.

Talking about advanced/technical wreck diving community, obviously.

 

[northernone]

I'd suggest it was a very minority following... quite limited geographically. It's something I've only ever heard from NE USA wreck divers.

Talking about advanced/technical wreck diving community, obviously.

Exactly right on the demographic, it's trickled across to southern Canada a little too. Perhaps a little dated as some I respected the most have hung up their fins or passed on. I still believe no string substitutes the safety factor of knowing every foot of a wreck intimately.

I'm years away from a good wreck diver, but as a cave diver, for myself, too much reliance on the line is dangerous. Broken /lost guidelines have been a significant factor in too many deaths.

Regards,
Cameron