Iâve done hundreds of dives below 200, and probably about a hundred dives in the 250 to 300 foot range. That said, Iâm done diving deep for the sake of diving deep. Itâs hard on the body; helium is expensive; deco is boring, and is the pit any prettier at 280 than it is at 150? If there is something interesting down there; Iâll go, no doubt about it. But to dive deep for the sake of diving deep is a bit silly. The Kamloops for instance; great shipwreck; and if you want to explore it; you have to go down there; and do your deco time coming back up. Eagleâs Nest Cave, however. What a bore; Itâs really not that pretty of a cave, and you spend most of your dive decompressing in a stagnant swamp. Iâd rather do Telford Cave (max depth about 70 feet), which is a much more interesting place, a very pretty cave, though a bit hard to get to these days with the locked gate (no fun scootering down a tannic river which for all I know may be full of alligators). The most advanced dive Iâve done recently was Castle Rock Cave in Wisconsin. It is so shallow, that on one dive, my bottom timer didnât even turn on. Far more advanced than any shipwreck, pit, or other cave Iâve dived. I may sound like a hypocrite, but deep for the sake of deep is a bit silly. - Kirk
so are you considering cave and wreck not technical, or different technical? (hard to tell by your internet context)
zero viz, cold water and ice diving wouldnt be considered anything special?
if cave diving is considered technical, how is ice diving not technical,(it wasnt mentioned) just the light factor? (if you wouldnt consider it technical from above ignore this question)
(not trying to be a dick here, just posing the question)
Ice isn't really technical as you're on a leash at all times. It's more dog walk then tech dive. Sorry Joe. I love ice but at best it's advanced diving.
no need to apologize here, but i was under the impression in caving you also follow a line, so its similar to that extent
originally i was thinking of salt water ice diving where its more possible for a frozen reg
if you figure in more complex environments and zero viz, dive planning, and cave ins, cave diving is a bit different than just ice tho
I think John has it right, I always understood "recreational diving" to end at 130-140', beyond that you have "deep air" beyond that you have "technical diving". Nicki's question (as I read it) is just who are some of the deepest divers in MN, not necessarily on, air, CCR, or trimix. I've been to 238' on air back before there were the options of CCR and trimix, (outside the commercial diving field) and you took the risks or you didn't go there. Today at 51 years old I dont really want/need to go past 200' on air, but am comfortable going close to there alone. I think it comes down to knowing your limitations, accepting the consequences of something going wrong, being as prepared as you can be, and knowing how much risk your willing to accept. When it comes to depth, I always liked the twin montras of, "you can drown in a sink if you cant pull your head out of it",,,,,"the only thing you have to keep doing for the next five min. is, breathe" TRINITY
so are you considering cave and wreck not technical, or different technical? (hard to tell by your internet context)
zero viz, cold water and ice diving wouldnt be considered anything special?
if cave diving is considered technical, how is ice diving not technical,(it wasnt mentioned) just the light factor? (if you wouldnt consider it technical from above ignore this question)
(not trying to be a dick here, just posing the question)
[/quote]
I think you read my quote wrong. The apples to oranges comparison quote is comparing a no deco dive or bounce dive on air to 130 in a mine pit etc to advanced wreck penetration, cave diving and deep mix diving etc. I went back and added a few more words to help clarify that in my original post.
Like arcflash mentioned ice diving is advanced diving but not tech diving.
Let us be honest about this. Kirk is not being silly.
Diving deep for the sake of diving deep is a fallacy.
This is from those who think you can measure a dive
(and measure a diver) based on the depth.
Decide what you want to do and ask about it
or ask about what you might do. Ask about how to get there.
There are many here that have answers (even from
different viewpoints which is not necessarily bad).
Good on ya
That's a real good point. I've seen many divers over the years doing bounce dives well past 130 feet on single tanks and a pony that have no technical training. I'll admit I've done it a few times myself and looking back on it, it was pretty dumb.
Back on track.
Joe
150'
Wing, back plate, dry suit, single tank currently (sorry guys), h-valve, 40' pony, cert for adv nitrox an decomp., Scuba Center-Eagan, (Thanks John), TDI
Reason: after diving Isle Royal, would like to spend some more time at depth and be safer. Knowledge is a wonderful thing.
Joe
[quote author=TRINITY link=topic=5814.msg32354#msg32354 date=1258523694]
When it comes to depth, I always liked the montra of, "you can drown in a sink if you cant pull your head out of it" TRINITY /quote]
I have to agree with you TRINITY, that montra is pretty accurate.