SSSHHHHHH! People may be listening. Went in thru the windows and down the past the railings into the stern. Did not get as far as the engine room. That's for next trip but done properly this time.
Wreck Penetration
- Thread starter Aquatic Eagle
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
SSSHHHHHH! People may be listening. Went in thru the windows and down the past the railings into the stern. Did not get as far as the engine room. That's for next trip but done properly this time.
there are ships cleaned & 'sanitized' & sunk on purpose, with hatches & doors & wires removed. i don't think doing a swimthrough on one of these is either a penetration *or* a technical dive.
if it's the equivalent of going through the school bus in the local quarry, it ain't technical.
(my definition of 'tech' is overhead, hard or soft, but if your feet hang out on one end and your head is coming through the other...well...)
A swim thru no, you are right but I personally saw a diver get to close to the ceiling in a room on the Grove and have to stop to free a hose from a light fixture thingie. But just because it's been sanitized does not make it safe as the three men who died in the Spiegel proved when they got stupid and did not make it out.
OP
SandyRobinson
Contributor
For the most part, if the penetration involves any of the following, I would consider it techincal:
1. Loss of natural light from an available exit
2. Potential for silty conditions
3. Possibility of entanglement
4. Area not big enough for two divers to maneuver, turn around, and buddy breathe with a short hose
5. Deeper than 100 feet or distance to surface is more than 100 feet.
6. Exit is more than 20 or 30(maybe more, maybe less???) linear feet away
If the above do not apply and it is a swim through with natural light such as a wheelhouse or down a hallway with cutouts, I would not consider it a tec dive.
1. Loss of natural light from an available exit
2. Potential for silty conditions
3. Possibility of entanglement
4. Area not big enough for two divers to maneuver, turn around, and buddy breathe with a short hose
5. Deeper than 100 feet or distance to surface is more than 100 feet.
6. Exit is more than 20 or 30(maybe more, maybe less???) linear feet away
If the above do not apply and it is a swim through with natural light such as a wheelhouse or down a hallway with cutouts, I would not consider it a tec dive.
NatureDiver:
Recreational diving is diving for recreation or fun. We all have limits in our diving and we all know (I hope) what those limits are. Your limit might be not to penetrate at all or it might be not to penetrate beyond a swim through. Calling an activity beyond a particular limit "technical" serves no purpose unless that's the only thing you call "technical." I've been making what some would call technical dives for over 20 years, but what does that tell you about my diving? Not much. Am I a cave diver? Am I a wreck diver? Am I a mixed gas diver? Am I a deep diver? Am I a deco diver? Am I a rebreather diver? You can't tell from the fact some call me a technical diver. The answers are yes to half of the questions, no to the other half. The term is useless and I don't use it.
There are distinctions between lots of different types of diving. Competence in one area does not translate into competence in another.
OP
The only time I might use the term is when describing to an OW student what more advanced possibilities are out there, as in "first get comfortable with the basics and gather experience, then you can start to explore more technical activities such as trimix, penetrations etc."
But I agree with the consensus in the thread, saying you are a technical diver is quite non-descriptive and pointless. If someone is really interested in hearing what type of diving I do, I'd say I've been in some wrecks, caves, I sometimes use mixed gasses etc.
But I agree with the consensus in the thread, saying you are a technical diver is quite non-descriptive and pointless. If someone is really interested in hearing what type of diving I do, I'd say I've been in some wrecks, caves, I sometimes use mixed gasses etc.
OP
I'm not as averse to the term "technical diving" as Walter is, but I certainly don't think there is a bright line. Diving begins with a shallow reef dive in good visibility (and swimming through a small, sanitized wreck or bus or airplane here is something I think few people would term a "technical" dive) and proceed to get more complex as depth, dark, water conditions, the nature of the "wreck" and the conditions inside it change. At some point, one must seriously consider the "what ifs" and do some contingency planning, and incorporate some redundancy into critical systems. At that point, dive planning becomes more detailed, and the level of skill and experience required of the divers increases. These really are the hallmarks of a "technical" dive of any sort.
I swam through the Rhone wreck in the BVI in a single tank and I was completely cheerful and unperturbed about doing it. (Photo of a friend in that wreck is HERE.) But I would consider penetration of the wrecks in Nanaimo, which have been "sanitized", to be much more of a "technical" dive, in that I would be diving a thirds gas plan, in doubles, running line, and probably carrying a deco gas. The penetration areas of those wrecks lie below 100 feet, in the dark, and the wreck is silty, and any delay is going to result in really mandatory decompression.
Similar threads
