Dunderburg

[tbeindit]

616funQuote:
Originally Posted by sitdown248
616funThe Dunderberg on a single tank, no H valve, and I don't see any stage/deco bottle setup?

Wow. . .


I was on the dive, I was carrying a pony bottle, I think you assume too much without asking. We all know what happens when you assume...

Keep those thoughts up. I know the Dunderberg well. I'm pursuing technical training largely in part to dive her. A recreational diver has no business doing that dive.

You guys keep it up. Diving needs statistics to keep the boards alive and active with speculation as to what happened on the accident.

So go on. We'll see who's the ass...

I'm sorry to let you in on the little secret, we never went into decompression. As we all know there are no "set depths," everything is simply recommendations. Now, I'm not saying it's a baby dive with no dangers, anyone with half a brain could see there are obvious dangers, but saying recreational divers have no business diving that wreck is absurd.
I would just like to give a little breakdown of the dive. We descended my max depth was 133. The supposed limit for recreational divers is 130 ft, hmm... so I was 3 feet beyond that limit, did I break the recommendations? Yes, but I still never went into decompression. I surfaced with over 1000 psi left in my tank and guess what, I still had a pony bottle hanging on my chest.
If you dive the sand, then no, recreational divers probably shouldn't be doing it, but for us divers who have adequate breathing skills and buoyancy control we can decide how deep we're going to go and for how long.
It isn't very difficult to figure out. Even if, for example, someone free flowed, we would have 3 divers right there who could lend assistance including several who slung pony bottles.

 

[616fun]

I'm sorry to let you in on the little secret, we never went into decompression. As we all know there are no "set depths," everything is simply recommendations. Now, I'm not saying it's a baby dive with no dangers, anyone with half a brain could see there are obvious dangers, but saying recreational divers have no business diving that wreck is absurd.
I would just like to give a little breakdown of the dive. We descended my max depth was 133. The supposed limit for recreational divers is 130 ft, hmm... so I was 3 feet beyond that limit, did I break the recommendations? Yes, but I still never went into decompression. I surfaced with over 1000 psi left in my tank and guess what, I still had a pony bottle hanging on my chest.
If you dive the sand, then no, recreational divers probably shouldn't be doing it, but for us divers who have adequate breathing skills and buoyancy control we can decide how deep we're going to go and for how long.
It isn't very difficult to figure out. Even if, for example, someone free flowed, we would have 3 divers right there who could lend assistance including several who slung pony bottles.

One other thought...do your computers adjust for fresh water vs salt? Did you even consider that? If not that 133' dip to the gator was more like 137', and if you consider cold water dives should be planned 10' deeper than actual depth, you're looking at 147'. Also, you're diving off of a private boat. Does that boat take O2 on dives? Was anyone left topside in case the stuff hit the fan? Just some things to think about.

I know you probably are not going to take any of my thoughts into consideration. Making dives like the Dunderberg are not in scope of a recreational diver. Ask anyone who is trained and experienced in technical diving. That's my advice. You're able to heed my warning or go on about your way. That's all.

 

[tbeindit]

616funQuote:
Originally Posted by sitdown248
I'm sorry to let you in on the little secret, we never went into decompression. As we all know there are no "set depths," everything is simply recommendations. Now, I'm not saying it's a baby dive with no dangers, anyone with half a brain could see there are obvious dangers, but saying recreational divers have no business diving that wreck is absurd.
I would just like to give a little breakdown of the dive. We descended my max depth was 133. The supposed limit for recreational divers is 130 ft, hmm... so I was 3 feet beyond that limit, did I break the recommendations? Yes, but I still never went into decompression. I surfaced with over 1000 psi left in my tank and guess what, I still had a pony bottle hanging on my chest.
If you dive the sand, then no, recreational divers probably shouldn't be doing it, but for us divers who have adequate breathing skills and buoyancy control we can decide how deep we're going to go and for how long.
It isn't very difficult to figure out. Even if, for example, someone free flowed, we would have 3 divers right there who could lend assistance including several who slung pony bottles.

One other thought...do your computers adjust for fresh water vs salt? Did you even consider that? If not that 133' dip to the gator was more like 137', and if you consider cold water dives should be planned 10' deeper than actual depth, you're looking at 147'. Also, you're diving off of a private boat. Does that boat take O2 on dives? Was anyone left topside in case the stuff hit the fan? Just some things to think about.

I know you probably are not going to take any of my thoughts into consideration. Making dives like the Dunderberg are not in scope of a recreational diver. Ask anyone who is trained and experienced in technical diving. That's my advice. You're able to heed my warning or go on about your way. That's all.

First off, yes, we have O2 sitting there in case of emergencies. Yes, I'm familiar with the cold water add ten feet mantra, but it makes no difference in terms of decompression, though yes I do agree, it is smarter to add the 10 feet.
To you it's not in the scope of a recreational diver, but like I said, I'm just looking at the facts. All 4 of us had around 1000 psi when we reached the surface. So that's over a tank sitting right there in reserve for an emergency. Granted, in emergencies people will be using air more frequently, but nonetheless the air will be there. Second, the several pony bottles there are ready for useage. Also, we never went into decompression. I fail to see it as a "technical" dive until our non-deco time hits zero.
We planned our dive and we stuck to our plan, we were ascending up the line without decompression time, which I'm sure you're aware means essentially no stops are required, but they are recommended as long as you ascend at a realistic rate.
Like I said, of course there are increased dangers the deeper a diver descends, but we were well within our limits. 133, even if in cold temperatures, is not out for recreational divers

 

[DonnyGreen]

616funQuote:
Originally Posted by sitdown248
...
Like I said, of course there are increased dangers the deeper a diver descends, but we were well within our limits. 133, even if in cold temperatures, is not out for recreational divers

...and I thought 130' was the bottom for "recreational" diving. I guess there's no use screwing up a good dive plan with data. I’m not sure why you “plan” a recreational dive to 133’. With not all divers equipped for the dive no less.
Did you and your computer adjust for salt water? If not, like he said…133' would be 137'. Is 137' out of range for "recreational" divers? How about 140'? And if you consider 137’ out of range, why is 133’ acceptable? How about limited penetration, is that outside the range of a good recreational diver?
I think what is trying to be said is that diving outside ones training is what leads to trouble, and while I do not know what your training level is, I do know that 130' is the bottom for recreational diving AND that 133' is deeper than 130'. These limits were put in place for a reason.
It doesn't take a whole lot of training to drop to those depths, have a nice, incident free dive. It’s the unpleasant face of Mr. Murphy where training and practice get you back to the surface.

 

[CMAN]

To set the record straight nobody took this dive lightly. We have been working our way to diving the Dunderburg over the last several years by diving deeper and deeper wrecks (Regina,Mary Alice B, North Star, New York, etc.). The dive plan was to go to the "gator" take a quick picture and then accend back above the deck and watch our no-deco and be back on the anchor line when the first person hit 2000 PSI. I ended the dive with 1653 PSI with a stop at 66' for 1 1/2 mins. another stop at 33' for 2 min. and then 15' for 6 mins. As for setting your computer and adding extra depth for fresh water, I think you got it backwards. Salt water is denser than fresh so it will exert more pressure, and if I remember right salt water is 33'= 1 At. and fresh water is 34'=1 At. The computers depth sensor is a pressure sensor so it doesn't make a diference if it is fresh,salt or air the pressure on the sensor is what it will read. For example it will read 33' when your are actually at 34' fresh water because the pressure is 1 At.

 

[CMAN]

The Dunderburg CAN be done with-in recreational limits, but you do need to work your way to those depths and carry the right equipment (which started all this). It is a much better tech dive because you can stay longer and see more of this beautiful wreck.

 

[b1gcountry]

So, how was the dive?

Tom

 

[CMAN]

Awesome !!!!!!

 

[DOkie]

I find this amusing. Didn't even make it to page two yet while I'm posting a reply, but the "you guys" comment stopped me in my tracks. How much diving does this poster do in the Great Lakes? Maybe I'm just something of an oddity, but 130' on a single tank with a pony is a daily dive for me and the 4 other boats tied up behind me...

I guess "we guys" are just dying in such large numbers in the Great Lakes that it's too much for the media to keep up with. Oh, that's right, the last death I read about was actually a tech diver....

 

[tbeindit]

...and I thought 130' was the bottom for "recreational" diving. I guess there's no use screwing up a good dive plan with data. I’m not sure why you “plan” a recreational dive to 133’. With not all divers equipped for the dive no less.
Did you and your computer adjust for salt water? If not, like he said…133' would be 137'. Is 137' out of range for "recreational" divers? How about 140'? And if you consider 137’ out of range, why is 133’ acceptable? How about limited penetration, is that outside the range of a good recreational diver?
I think what is trying to be said is that diving outside ones training is what leads to trouble, and while I do not know what your training level is, I do know that 130' is the bottom for recreational diving AND that 133' is deeper than 130'. These limits were put in place for a reason.
It doesn't take a whole lot of training to drop to those depths, have a nice, incident free dive. It’s the unpleasant face of Mr. Murphy where training and practice get you back to the surface.

Tell me, maybe this is just me wondering, but why 130 feet, why not 131, why not 129. What "magic" happens at 130 feet? Like I said, maybe it's just me, but I find the idea of a "magic" depth a little odd. Personally, I think it's decompression that determines what a "technical" dive is.
Now, some people spoke about computers, even if you went by the NAVY dive tables, you could descend to 140 and still have time without going into decompression, so I fail to see the computer argument's relevance.
I looked to find what defines "technical" diving and well, it's difficult to find a definition that is agreed upon by all organizations, in fact, the Wikipedia page says "There is some level of professional disagreement as to what the term should encompass."
So personally, the idea that going beyond 130 immediately makes it a "technical" dive is just an opinion, not a "limit." It even clearly states it's a recommendation not a "limit."
I'm not saying throw it out it's garbage, etc. I'm just saying that I think a technical dive begins when someone enters decompression, that's what all the extra technical training is for isn't it? To learn how to decompress and the science behind it. Well, if you don't go into decompression I don't see where the training is needed. Yes, I suppose you could say well what happens if you stay too long in an emergency and go into decompression, well what if you stay too long at 120 or 110 or even 100 feet, you're still in the same situation, you're in decompression. Now, I agree it is less likely to happen at 100 than 130, but as stated above we planned for this dive and possible situations that could arise.
Personally, I don't believe we went beyond our "limits" if you even believe there are recreational "limits." We prepared for the dive and had backup systems in place in case something happened. Should divers stay within their training? Of course, but we are talking about this dive and on this particular dive, I would have to say no, we did not go beyond our limits