Why dive in a quarry? Should you log them

[Joneill]

In all fairness, and please excuse me if I am repeating what someone else has already said, but I believe that, in context, people being mental for diving quarries was preceded by "Unless you have no chance of getting into the sea.." Not sure if that sufficiently softens the blow in any case.

I saw his caveat - but he was still suggesting that choosing a quarry dive over an ocean dive somehow means you are crazy. That is ridiculous and insulting!

All but 2 of my 50 dives to date have been in the Caribbean (Aruba, T&C, GC) as I'll take warm, clear water anyday, if available. However, I live in NJ so that is not the case.

Without an expensive trip, I can mainly only do ocean diving that is typically relatively deep wrecks with so-so viz (so I'm told) or quarry diving at Dutch Springs in PA. This summer I do plan on getting a few weekends of diving in at Dutch Springs - It's a great site with lots on interesting sunken objects. While different, it is still good diving and as good as, if not better than, a few ocean sites I've dived. In my opinion, it's good to mix things up for building experience.

 

[PSUSciDiver]

Quarry diving -It's what separates the boys from the men, the girls from the women.


If there's water, dive it. And I almost forgot, you should log every dive!

 

[CptTightPants21]

Unless I'm unaware of some sort of back-channel battle going on here, his original post was this:

"Just curious, but do you count quarry dives in your #logged?"

That was Murky Waters. I was referring to CharlieRodgers--who started with the Rubish remark. Murky Waters has been fine.

This interests me, having never dived in a quarry, but often in the ocean. Could you elaborate?

A variety of reasons.

Costs, rough seas, and tide dependency can hinder ocean diving, but have no bearing on a quarry dive.

In the Northeast, shore dives can be pretty boring and shallow. Go up the coast line, come back--lots of rocks, and sand. There are a few beaches, some old bridges, piers. I get far more enjoyment planning a 2 hour dive with depths ranging from 50-100ft with a dozen different target destinations than doing a shore dive or even diving some wrecks. Not every wreck is some spectacular intact shipping monument, a good chunk of them are simply debris fields. If your primary goal is hunting, then yes, a quarry isn't for you, but if you just want to dive, navigate, maybe take some pictures, and meet new people a quarry has a lot to offer.

I also think quarries are the best training grounds for new divers and AOW.

 

[diver0008]

I'm still curious what might have you wondering why those dives would be not logged.

Because I was under the impression that quarries were only used for training. I saw them as large pool dives. An LDS I was at last week goes to a quarry for training. I had no idea that people actually used quarries for everyday recreational diving. I didn't and don't consider training dives to be actual open water dives. But that's just me. People log their dives as they wish, and some not at all. It's such a minor detail in any event. I've only been diving for a few years and do not have several hundred or even thousands of dives under my belt like many others here. I have only dove in the ocean and lakes. Perhaps when I have more dives in a larger variety of locales, the change of scenery a quarry offers will become more interesting. Presently, it still seems a little strange to me. Anyone and everyone is free to disagree. I just hope civility is maintained.

 

[stuartv]

I saw his caveat - but he was still suggesting that choosing a quarry dive over an ocean dive somehow means you are crazy. That is ridiculous and insulting!

All but 2 of my 50 dives to date have been in the Caribbean (Aruba, T&C, GC) as I'll take warm, clear water anyday, if available. However, I live in NJ so that is not the case.

Without an expensive trip, I can mainly only do ocean diving that is typically relatively deep wrecks with so-so viz (so I'm told) or quarry diving at Dutch Springs in PA. This summer I do plan on getting a few weekends of diving in at Dutch Springs - It's a great site with lots on interesting sunken objects. While different, it is still good diving and as good as, if not better than, a few ocean sites I've dived. In my opinion, it's good to mix things up for building experience.

FWIW, I took the whole "it's rubbish" comment the way I would take the same words if we were sitting around drinking some beers and I said "I dive in the local quarry". As they say, "lighten up, Francis."

Anyway, I did a weekend of NJ wreck diving last Fall. It's not as good as NC wreck diving. It's colder and the viz is not as good (based on my vast one weekend of experience up there). But, I thought it was still totally enjoyable. If you ever want to go and dive with a not-quite-instabuddy, let me know. I'm game to come up there and do it again. I went out on the Gypsyblood, out of Pleasant Beach. We dived the Algol and the Mohawk, which were nice wrecks. I thought it was a good boat and crew. I'd go out with them again, but am totally open to other choices. Especially ones further south, since I'm coming from VA.

You should at least have a go with the NJ wrecks yourself before you write them off as "too dark and cold".

 

[TMHeimer]

What an obtuse question? Why wouldn't you?

I haven't read most of the posts since this first reply says it all. The only dives I don't log are pool. This is a silly tangent off the standard thread "what do you log"?, etc. Depth and time seem to be considerations as to what's an "official" dive in the eyes of agencies for people wishing to take courses that require ___ logged dives. Otherwise, log anything you want. Gee, has that maybe been said before by many?
I've done very few fresh water dives (lakes, courses in springs,etc.) and logged them, at times as deep as 20', even one to 50+. No shells there to speak of for me to hunt, so these are dives just to do something and get wet. Why wouldn't I log them?

 

[northernone]

Because I was under the impression that quarries were only used for training. I saw them as large pool dives. I had no idea that people actually used quarries for everyday recreational diving. I didn't and don't consider training dives to be actual open water dives. But that's just me.

Makes sense where you're coming from. I'm likely from the other side of things. For me every dive is a training dive.

Do I understand right?
Scenario 1.
Ocean dive, 30 feet, 30 minutes, old time instructor buddy. Fun dive, no skills. Logged dive.

Senarii
Quarry dive, 300 feet, 300 minutes, old time instructor buddy. Certification dive, skills. Not a dive to log.

Is that how you see it?

 

[diver0008]

Makes sense where you're coming from. I'm likely from the other side of things. For me every dive is a training dive.

Do I understand right?
Scenario 1.
Ocean dive, 30 feet, 30 minutes, old time instructor buddy. Fun dive, no skills. Logged dive.

Senarii
Quarry dive, 300 feet, 300 minutes, old time instructor buddy. Certification dive, skills. Not a dive to log.

Is that how you see it?

That's a pretty extreme stretch. I think that if you are diving 300 feet for 300 minutes, at that point, you know precisely what you are doing. It's far beyond my being in a position to have any worthy opinion.

 

[2airishuman]

I guess things are different here.

Some of my favorite local dives sites are, I suppose, technically, quarries.

Two of them were gravel pits -- Lac Lavon and Square Lake. Sure, they're used for training, but each of them has a surface area of hundreds of acres, and has the same vegetation and fish as the natural lakes around the area. The viz is a little better than most of the natural lakes, but it's really hard to tell for sure that you're in an old gravel pit rather than something carved by a glacier. There's no admission charge though you have to pay a few dollars to park at Square. I see them as lakes, and I dive them, see the lake change with the seasons, watch the fish, explore, have fun, and yes I log the dives.

Many iron mines, now abandoned, around here; viz usually a little better than the natural lakes, and the dives are deeper. Again these are larger "quarries" with surface areas in the hundreds of acres, more in some cases. Most charge no admisison.

 

[northernone]

That's a pretty extreme stretch. I think that if you are diving 300 feet for 300 minutes, at that point, you know precisely what you are doing. It's far beyond my being in a position to have any worthy opinion.

I'm the inexperienced diver among some on this thread, it's an interesting thought though.


My scenarios are bit of a stretch for fun numbers but still a training dive for certification just like OW in a quarry and I'll have lot's to learn and need the instructor. (that's another topic). But realistically I may end up in a quarry for my ccr hypoxic trimix certification, a decent training dive would be pretty close to those numbers for that class.

I just love being underwater, didn't log any dives pre padi certification but now that I'm officially training I need to meet standards.

Regards,
Cameron