Wreck Penetration

[Teamcasa]

It does depend on the wreck and the level of penetration.
Depth, overhead limitations and or entanglement issues are the big determining factors.

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.

 

[Web Monkey]

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.

Unless you survived a trip into the engine room (in which case I want to rub your head for good luck and recommend you buy lottery tickets), it's hard to get trapped in the Keystorm. The huge hatches on the cargo holds have been removed, and there's nothing inside to get hung up on.

Terry

 

[grumpie]

I hope that your not using line reels for ice diving. Thats a invit to dieing. you get to far from the hole and have a problem and you cant reel in fast enough and die.

 

[String]

Still cant work out where this imaginary line that defines any "technical diving" is or why.

 

[Blackwood]

I hope that your not using line reels for ice diving. Thats a invit to dieing. you get to far from the hole and have a problem and you cant reel in fast enough and die.

Huh?

Leave the reel.

 

[Teamcasa]

Still cant work out where this imaginary line that defines any "technical diving" is or why.

It seems as soon as a diver decides that they should believe everything they read on the internet, run out and buy that nifty back plate and wing, long hose and bungie up their octos they are now ready for technical diving.

A more serious answer might be, deeper or longer than recreational limits, overhead or entanglement issues or any other situation that a recreational diver should avoid.

 

[Pitchblack]

Full penentration, Yes. Sticking you'r head into the hull/bridge, No.
And ice-diving with a reel...Not an option for a person without the proper training and knowledge of linehandling and methods for refinding a lost reel. A thick rope around the waist is the way.

Cutting corners kills.

Best reagards.

 

[F106A]

The definition of "technical" to us tourist divers can be a bit fuzzy (at least to me). With my (admittedly mundane) diving background I don't define penetration ("technical") as a swim through on the Spiegel or Duane, or sticking your head and light in a compartment on the Varanger or Stolt Dagali. (Although there is one Bozo from NJ here on SB who claims 200+ "penetrations" with about, I'm estimating, 300 total dives including MANY in FL, HI and other warm water sites. Apparently he feels he has done a "penetration" whenever his boat moors on a wreck. I hope some impressionable newby doesn't take this clown too seriously!) Again, like several others have said, there isn't a black/white line delineating technical from recreational. Having wordily said that, I believe that real penetrations are, indeed, technical diving. As for "real" penetrations, again, several of the other responders to this post have very adequately addressed that.

 

[Walter]

Do you consider penetration wreck diving a technical activity?

Absolutely not! I do not recognize the concept of "technical diving."

Still cant work out where this imaginary line that defines any "technical diving" is or why.

That's because there are many different definitions of the term and even if everyone were to agree on one definition, the designation would still be useless.

About 20 years ago somebody coined the term to encompass a bunch of unrelated activities. At first it meant dives that broke rules established by agencies. Now, it's trying to (and succeeding in many cases) make new rules to put "technical" diving within another set of rules. Later folks started including established, although not mainstream, specialties, like cave diving, in with the other unrelated types of diving under the "technical" umbrella. "Technical" diving is a meaningless term. It means too many things to too many people. When you say "technical" diving I have no idea if you are referring to cave, mixed gas, solo, deep air, something else or a combination. If you are interested in mixed gas; refer to mixed gas; if it's cave; refer to cave, etc. Your message will be much clearer. Expertise in one type of "technical" diving does not carry over into another. "Technical" diving is a useless distinction that IMHO we should all stop using.

 

[BabyDuck]

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... )