Wreck Penetration

[Aquatic Eagle]

I've been having a debate with someone about this and I want everyones opinion. Do you consider penetration wreck diving a technical activity? Please answer in the above poll and write a reply with why or why not. Thanks guys!

 

[scubatexastony]

Could be a very long list, but here's a few:
Overhead
entanglement
skill sets
fin techniques
line handling
gas planning
.....ect.

~tony

 

[Blackwood]

Overhead = my best description of "technical".


I guess it could be "depends" in the instance that you're "penetration" is limited to areas with easy to reach exits and practically no possibility of loss of viz (which could be considered as a non-overhead for all intents and purposes), but generally speaking, "penetration" of any kind implies (to me) at the very least hard overhead, meaning that problems must be solved underwater and that you must be able to reach the exit.

 

[ScubaSteve]

I am wholly with the above two posters. While I do feel this way, I do believe a little bit (and I stress a little bit) of leniancy can be given to real swim throughs where you can clearly and closely see the other side where there is lots of room and no entanglement hazards.

 

[N Perry]

If you can't make a direct ascent to the surface, it's a form of technical diving (different gear and training requirements), NOT recreational.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Wreck penetration is a technical dive by any agencies definition except perhaps as noted by Steve. Even then stuff can go wrong very fast and you do not have adirect route to the surface. I'm just getting into more extensive penetration( ie running my own lines, not relying on visual sight of another opening, etc.). But with what I've experienced so far and read, and seen, it really did not hit home what no access meant until I took my Ice Class and could see people walking above me and know that there was no way I could reach them without getting back to the hole. Vis was great, was on a tehter, had a good buddy, but it still made an impression, a deep one. It got me looking at my reels with the cave line and thinking that ain't heavy enough for what I want to do. A heavier line would be better and more resistant to getting cut. The whole thing left me feeling like I need more experience and training to do the kinds of penetrations I want to do and realize I did some really stupid things early on on dives like the Spiegel in Fla and the Keystorm in the St Lawrence. Yeah penetration is a technical dive and not to be taken lightly at any level.

 

[eponym]

I second Texas Tony's list, and would add "gear." Penetration's technical in that gear selection and configuration become crucial to survival (avoiding entanglement, sharing air in tight swim-thoughs, finding back-ups with no viz, etc.).

-Bryan

 

[fnfalman]

Depends on the wreck. At Catalina Island, there's a tiny sailboat that was sunk on purpose (I think). It has a hole in the side big enough for one person to go in and out. I seriously doubt that you'd need technical skills to crawl into this thing and come back out.

 

[Blackwood]

Depends on the wreck. At Catalina Island, there's a tiny sailboat that was sunk on purpose (I think). It has a hole in the side big enough for one person to go in and out. I seriously doubt that you'd need technical skills to crawl into this thing and come back out.

What is it they often say about the exception?


BTW, I wouldn't personally consider crawling into a small hole to be 'penetration'. It is, however, a "getting stuck underwater" hazard.

 

[ScubaSteve]

It is, however, a "getting stuck underwater" hazard.

And this kind of the whole issue with any penetration is not "getting stuck underwater" and being able to surface alive.

Posted via Mobile Device