 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / Australian Scuba / August 2007What is wrong with a snokel I reckon they are great
I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel supposedly was a catch hazard ( I will never do it again it scared the sh.t out of me and if you want to do this for fun good on you ) and the same applies to penetrating wrecks. However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing > I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For > example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel supposedly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing I carry a snorkle in my BC pocekt so no problems with snagging and can pull it out slip under mask strap when needed. I have never lost it since I have done this. Lee Arnould WebSlave ScubaZine http://www.scubazine.com > I carry a snorkle in my BC pocekt so no problems with snagging and can > pull it out slip under mask strap when needed. I have never lost it > since I have done this. I carry mine shoved up my butt. It reminds me of when I have little boy dicks shoved up my butt. I have never lost it since carrying it this way either. Clearing it initially is sometimes a bit difficult, but it helps if you suck first and then chew and blow. Kind of like what I do with the truckers at the glory holes. >I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For >example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing I'm just a novice, but it always gets in my way. I know a lot of divers who don't use them, but I can see where they would come in handy if the ocean is choppy or you spend a lot of time snorkeling as you look for a good place to descend. That would save a lot of air. >>I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For >>example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ocean is choppy or you spend a lot of time snorkeling as you look for a > good place to descend. That would save a lot of air. each to their own. I have never found my snorkel a hindrance and find it useful for surface swims ( the swim lift your head up breathe and repeat is a w.nk afaik using a snorkel is so much easier) and on boat dives getting around to the anchor line. [...] Just commented on this on another thread. Bottom line is that when you watch someone nearly drown because they didn't have one, you too might become more predisposed to ignore all of the "no snorkel" comments in rec.scuba. Only time that I'd consider leaving a snorkel behind is if I'm doing a cave dive. Although even then, it would depend on the dive site and the dive plan, for the openwater portion of the dive. -hh > Only time that I'd consider leaving a snorkel behind is if I'm doing a > cave dive. Although even then, it would depend on the dive site and > the dive plan, for the openwater portion of the dive. Um, deployment of the long hose? Curtis > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cave dive. Although even then, it would depend on the dive site and > the dive plan, for the openwater portion of the dive. I cant remember the last time I owned one, let alone dove with one slapping around on the side of my head... > Bottom line is that when you watch someone nearly drown because they > didn't have one How did that happen? Am curious. V. > > Bottom line is that when you watch someone nearly drown because they > > didn't have one > > How did that happen? Am curious. Long story short, the current carried us south, but our chase boat went north. We ended up with a 30+ minute float before they picked us up. The surface conditions were fairly non-benign: we were in a short rough & breaking chop that had been aggrivated by near-shore reflections off of some cliffs & rocks. We couldn't do a shore exit because of these cliffs/rocks, so we were obligated to stay off and drift float. The diver in question was in a Wing with a rental AL80 didn't have problem for the first ~15 minutes, as they merely stayed on their regulator and sucked their tank dry instead of breathing surface air. When they went to change over to surface air, the breaking waves and such prevented a minimal inflation level (which would have normally caused only a slight 'face down'), so because of the rough seas, they had inflate a bit more, to literally keep their nose above water more than half the time. The same erratic and rough waters prevented the approach of rolling up onto one's back, plus I found that this also reduced one's situational awareness as to where the cliffs and submerged rocks were - - the group as a whole subconciously stayed too close to the rocks than they should have (I probably lead 4 or 5 "okay everyone swim back offshore" exercises). The lesson learned from all of this is that the amount of effort that a floater needs to expend is relatively trivial for a short float, but as the float duration increases, this can lead to rapid fatigue. For this diver, they "weren't in trouble" until they had sucked their tank dry and had to rely on 'surface supply', which because of the surface conditions, wasn't particularly easy, as the weight of the gear caused a significant lag in the short wave period, so we were literally dunking to the point of 'mask underwater' on nearly every wave pass. It might not be the types of surface conditions that one encounters every day, but when it happens, it can quickly get to the point where the diver needs to ditch his gear in order to have a viable surface float orientation that does not cause a high exertion level. -hh >>>Bottom line is that when you watch someone nearly drown because they >>>didn't have one [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > -hh You are wrong here. THe solution is to don the BC backwards(plate against chest). Try it.  Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ > You are wrong here. > THe solution is to don the BC backwards(plate against chest). > > Try it. To play Devil's Advocate, if a Wing "can't" rotate one face-down as per all of the claims that are heard here, then putting on your chest instead of your back "can't" cause one to rotate face-up. In this case, the diver would have been just as well off simply getting out of their gear and letting the natural bouyancy of themselves & wetsuit keep them at the surface ... the lower total mass would have let them ride over the waves more so than 'through' them. IIRC, this was suggested, but refused. Alternatively, they could have held their rig to their chest, fully inflated it, and put their arms through to hold webbing straps, not unlike how one would hold onto one of those floating cushions. However, this probably would have been a 'heavy' ride in the conditions too, but would have also required the diver to let go of their safety blanket to get the BC turned around. As such, a significant contributing factor was that the diver in question didn't recognize that they were getting fatigued, and because of that, started to make bad decisions regarding their own welfare. Since this started virtually immediately with them staying on their tank and draining it dry, it points towards either a training shortcoming, a bad habit that they got away with for a long time, or a combination of both. -hh >>You are wrong here. >>THe solution is to don the BC backwards(plate against chest). [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > conditions too, but would have also required the diver to let go of > their safety blanket to get the BC turned around. That is what I suggested above. > As such, a significant contributing factor was that the diver in > question didn't recognize that they were getting fatigued, and because [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -hh Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ > The lesson learned from all of this is that the amount of effort that > a floater needs to expend is relatively trivial for a short float, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a significant lag in the short wave period, so we were literally > dunking to the point of 'mask underwater' on nearly every wave pass. I've comfortably been in conditions where swells break over my head plenty of times. The trick is to not breathe when the swell is over your head and instead breathe when your nose and/or mouth are out of the water. With a normal old-fashioned snorkel, waves breaking over my head would likely tend to flood the snorkel as well, causing me to surely inhale water, choke, and drown. Do you recommend one of the new-fangled "dry snorkels" for such extreme activity? >> The lesson learned from all of this is that the amount of effort that >> a floater needs to expend is relatively trivial for a short float, but [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > water, choke, and drown. Do you recommend one of the new-fangled "dry > snorkels" for such extreme activity? same skill different gear >I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For example I >have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel supposedly was a catch >hazard ( I will never do it again it scared the sh.t out of me and if you want to do >this for fun good on you ) and the same applies to penetrating wrecks. > > However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing I found a snorkel useful in San Diego shore dive to the canyon with a long swim out. Even though I swam out on my back the snorkel helped keep water out when the waves were high enough to go over my head. Other than that I stopped carrying the snorkel as it gets tangled up in the gear, and causes more harm than good. I normally swim on my back with the regulator in my right hand ready to put into mouth if needed. Adam Nothing wrong with them! I prefer not to have it attached to my mask when diving, but always have one with me... I have always thought about getting one of those roll-up ones, to stick in a pocket but mine sits nicely alongside the backplate of my bc ready to pull out 'ninja style' when I'm bobbing around on the surface waiting for the boat... A.L. > I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For > example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel supposedly > Nothing wrong with them! I prefer not to have it > attached to my mask when diving, but always have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the backplate of my bc ready to pull out 'ninja style' when > I'm bobbing around on the surface waiting for the boat... you're inane and insane > > Nothing wrong with them! I prefer not to have it > > attached to my mask when diving, but always have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > you're inane and insane more often than not... A.L. > I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For > example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel supposedly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing When I bought my gear I got a snorkel with all the bells and whistles. After all, it worked great in the pool and during the OW cert dives. All the diving I'm going to be doing is in salt water. For me, salt water dries my skin out very much bad(I dive dry). I already knew this. What I didn't know was that breathing the salt air a few inches above the surface was enough to dry my throat out in about ten breaths. I couldn't keep my nose canal separated from my throat and every time I inhaled my mask would suck to my face. I'll stick to compressed air in salt water and save the snorkel for the pool or swimming at a lake. Signature</TAZZ> >> I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For >> example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > inhaled my mask would suck to my face. I'll stick to compressed air in > salt water and save the snorkel for the pool or swimming at a lake. Which planet are you from? Matthias > I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. > For example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing It depends on your definition of *normal* I'm doing several types of diving at the moment. Some days I'm diving with a single cylinder as a DM either guiding relatively new OW divers or as an assistant to an instructor with OW or AOW divers. I use a snorkel on those dives so I don't give the wrong message to students. Remember, they *are* students, and learning to use a snorkel is yet another useful skill. In Melbourne, we have a fair few shore dive sites that may involve up to 500M surface swims to get to "the good bit". Being able to use a snorkel comfortably is a significant advantage on these dives. I personally use a snorkel on single cylinder dives where I expect a reasonably long surface swim. It is easier to use the snorkel and keep my head in the water. And I don't use half of my air getting to the real dive. - - - BUT - - - When I start diving deep with twin cylinders (or twins plus slings) the snorkel stays at home. In the worst case I might have three second stages in the vicinity of my mouth. One more mouthpiece would only be adding to the potential confusion. A snorkel is best left out of this equation. I'd just suggest that this is a case of "horses for courses" and leave it at that. I certainly don't feel a need for heated discussion one way or the other. -Don >> I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. >> For example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > -Don you must be an Aussie I agree with you. My definition of normal diving is recreational diving, one tank 45 minutes in not to cold water. Melbourne is far too cold IMHO for regular diving >> I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. >> For example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > -Don you must be an Aussie I agree with you. My definition of normal diving is recreational diving, one tank 45 minutes in not to cold water. Melbourne is far too cold IMHO for regular diving >>> I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. >>> For example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > you must be an Aussie I agree with you. <cough> > My definition of normal diving is recreational diving, one tank 45 minutes > in not to cold water. Melbourne is far too cold IMHO for regular diving > you must be an Aussie I agree with you. > > My definition of normal diving is recreational diving, one tank 45 minutes > in not to cold water. Melbourne is far too cold IMHO for regular diving My definition of rec diving is multifold. One is: Water is either warm or solid. second: My divetime ends when I decide it to. Not when the DM starts to worry. It is his worry, and the reason for it lies in his education. Not in my style of diving. Matthias > My definition of rec diving is multifold. > One is: Water is either warm or solid. > second: My divetime ends when I decide it to. > Not when the DM starts to worry. > It is his worry, and the reason for it lies in his > education. Not in my style of diving. ***** "dechucka" <dechucka@vomithotmail.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing Not for me. If there is any sort of current, it causes a bit of tugging, just enough to increase mask flooding. Plus, it's uncomfortable. Dan Bracuk Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do. > I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For > example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel supposedly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > However for normal diving isn't a snorkel a good thing Here is a simple test to validate the efficaciousness of your snorkel for diving. Submerge to 15' of water. Replace your regulator with your snorkel. Take a deep breath. I've tried this with several snorkels, and have yet to find one that is better than my Spare Air twins. Snorkels are dangerous contraptions. >> I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For >> example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Submerge to 15' of water. Replace your regulator with your snorkel. > Take a deep breath. why would one do that? It's like trying to breate off your fin u/w > I've tried this with several snorkels, and have yet to find one that > is better than my Spare Air twins. they are used for difference purposes > Snorkels are dangerous contraptions. that's a new one > why would one do that? It's like trying to breate off your fin u/w Your fin is not a mechanism to deliver air, and is useful for scuba. A snorkel is not. > > I've tried this with several snorkels, and have yet to find one that > > is better than my Spare Air twins. > > they are used for difference purposes No they aren't. Both my Spare Air and a snorkel deliver air to a diver. One is much better at it than the other, though. I've done my 15' test several times with the SA doubles, and it works like a champ every time. > > Snorkels are dangerous contraptions. > > that's a new one That's an old one. You're the new one. > That's an old one. You're the new one. Wasted words. Not to worry, he'll give you reason to toss him in the bin soon eneough. >> That's an old one. You're the new one. > > Wasted words. > > Not to worry, he'll give you reason to toss him in the bin soon eneough. just like you Scott, >> why would one do that? It's like trying to breate off your fin u/w > > Your fin is not a mechanism to deliver air, and is useful for scuba. > A snorkel is not. a snorkel is not a device to deliver air underwater >> > I've tried this with several snorkels, and have yet to find one that >> > is better than my Spare Air twins. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 15' test several times with the SA doubles, and it works like a champ > every time. one is designed for use underwater one on the surface >> > Snorkels are dangerous contraptions. >> >> that's a new one > > That's an old one. You're the new one. no been diving for 25 odd years. Isuppose each to their own I wouldn't touch a spare air but hey so what. > a snorkel is not a device to deliver air underwater > one is designed for use underwater one on the surface Well, I'm a SCUBA diver. I don't rig my kit for use on the surface. I think you want rec.skindiving. > no been diving for 25 odd years. > > Isuppose each to their own I wouldn't touch a spare air but hey so what. * cough * >> a snorkel is not a device to deliver air underwater > >> one is designed for use underwater one on the surface Yes, and sometimes being able to swim for a while on the surface is an important to a scuba diving. When it is, it's nice to have a snorkel. Other times, it's nice not to have one. There's no such thing as the best equipment for every dive. Lee >>> a snorkel is not a device to deliver air underwater >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Other times, it's nice not to have one. There's no such thing as the best > equipment for every dive. and that I suppose is my whole point, yes it is horses for courses in my situation/diving type I find the advantages of a snorkel totally outweigh the disadvantages of wearing one U/W. Obviously for other people it is different >> a snorkel is not a device to deliver air underwater > >> one is designed for use underwater one on the surface > > Well, I'm a SCUBA diver. I don't rig my kit for use on the surface. > I think you want rec.skindiving. fair enough I have outlined the reasons I use a snorkel because IMHO the surface is an important part of the scuba diving experience. > No they aren't. Both my Spare Air and a snorkel deliver air to a > diver. One is much better at it than the other, though. I've done my > 15' test several times with the SA doubles, and it works like a champ > every time. You're right, a snorkel is much better than a Spare Air. Lee > > No they aren't. Both my Spare Air and a snorkel deliver air to a > > diver. One is much better at it than the other, though. I've done my > > 15' test several times with the SA doubles, and it works like a champ > > every time. > > You're right, a snorkel is much better than a Spare Air. At 15'?! You must have one long snorkel, Lee! >> > No they aren't. Both my Spare Air and a snorkel deliver air to a >> > diver. One is much better at it than the other, though. I've done my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > At 15'?! You must have one long snorkel, Lee! One might argue that a Spare Air is near useless at any depth; but, 15 feet is an arbitrary depth you chose, obviously not the depth any of us would use a snorkel. Try swimming out half a mile and back the same distance to get to the dive site and let us know how you like your Spare Air then. > One might argue that a Spare Air is near useless at any depth; but, 15 feet > is an arbitrary depth you chose, obviously not the depth any of us would use > a snorkel. Try swimming out half a mile and back the same distance to get to > the dive site and let us know how you like your Spare Air then. Half mile swims should be done on your back. Try taking your snorkle down on a deep air dive, and see how much good it does you, Mr. Smartypants! >> One might argue that a Spare Air is near useless at any depth; but, 15 >> feet [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Half mile swims should be done on your back. why > Try taking your snorkle down on a deep air dive, and see how much good > it does you, Mr. Smartypants! about as useful as spare air? > > Half mile swims should be done on your back. > > why Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have access to the big air supply in the sky. > > Try taking your snorkle down on a deep air dive, and see how much good > > it does you, Mr. Smartypants! > > about as useful as spare air? Not nearly as useful. Dangerous contraption, in fact. >> > Half mile swims should be done on your back. >> >> why > > Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have > access to the big air supply in the sky. that is the bueaty of a snorkel you can do it both ways to get the access >> > Try taking your snorkle down on a deep air dive, and see how much good >> > it does you, Mr. Smartypants! >> >> about as useful as spare air? > > Not nearly as useful. Please explain how spare air is useful > Dangerous contraption, in fact. I assume you are commenting on snorkels, how are the dangerous in situation where they aren't a snag hazard > "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in > > Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have > > access to the big air supply in the sky. > > that is the bueaty of a snorkel you can do it both ways to get the access On your face on the surface, your fins are less efficient than they are if they are submerged like they would be if you were on your back. You will expend more energy that way, and tired divers are a hazzard. On your back, you never have to wonder if your snorkel is about to get flooded. > >> about as useful as spare air? > > > Not nearly as useful. > > Please explain how spare air is useful Go ahead and execute on my snorkel for diving efficiency test. It will become self evident in short order. > > Dangerous contraption, in fact. > > I assume you are commenting on snorkels, how are the dangerous in situation > where they aren't a snag hazard They are a drag hazard in current. They are a risk for mask leaking and flooding. They can cause confusion when you're looking for your oral inflator for your BC or a lose regulator. They prevent deployment of the long hose. They are inneficient at the surface (where you should be on your back). And, as you note, they are a snag hazzard. In short, they are dangerous contraptions. >> "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in >> > Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > hazzard. On your back, you never have to wonder if your snorkel is > about to get flooded. never have worried about a flooding snorkel, if it gets water in just clear it. >> >> about as useful as spare air? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Go ahead and execute on my snorkel for diving efficiency test. It > will become self evident in short order. I wanted to know how useful you consider spare air >> > Dangerous contraption, in fact. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They are a drag hazard in current. They are a risk for mask leaking > and flooding never had a problem but in a swift flowing river if could understand this .> They can cause confusion when you're looking for your > oral inflator for your BC or a lose regulator. what crap They prevent > deployment of the long hose. crap They are inneficient at the surface > (where you should be on your back). extremely effecient on the surface >And, as you note, they are a snag > hazzard. depends on your diving and probably no more than spare air bottles In short, they are dangerous contraptions. crap >>> "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in >>> > Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > crap maybe one crap to many > They are inneficient at the surface >> (where you should be on your back). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > crap >>>> "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in >>>> > Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > maybe one crap to many No truck pictures? Sounds like pie porking to me. As usual. >> They are inneficient at the surface >>> (where you should be on your back). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> crap >>>>> "Jerome's Sock Puppet" <jerome.on...@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>> > Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > No truck pictures? actually took a few of the Cat 7 last night will try and post them over the w/e. Have forgotten my Pica? a/c details so will make a new one >> > Half mile swims should be done on your back. >> why > Because your fins are more efficient that way, and because you'll have > access to the big air supply in the sky. My Mares fins work just fine either way and, wait for it, my snorkel gives me access to the big air supply in tky sky without having to squint because the sun is in my eyes, without having splashing water interfere with my breathing and with the ability to pick up my head and look where I'm going more easily. Of course if I get tired of watching the pretty fish on the swim or want to breath splashing water, or even need some sun on my face, I can always turn over. >> about as useful as spare air? > Not nearly as useful. Dangerous contraption, in fact. How many times has that been said about Spare Air. Sounds about the same to me. Lee >> One might argue that a Spare Air is near useless at any depth; but, 15 >> feet [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> to >> the dive site and let us know how you like your Spare Air then. > Half mile swims should be done on your back. Why? Is it that you don't want to see the pretty reef and fish on the bottom, or that you like the run shining in your eyes, or perhaps you just don't want to see Jaws coming? When swimming on the surface with a mask on, facing down is the best way. > Try taking your snorkle down on a deep air dive, and see how much good > it does you, Mr. Smartypants! About as much good as a Spare Air would, I think. Lee > >> One might argue that a Spare Air is near useless at any depth; but, 15 > >> feet [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bottom, or that you like the run shining in your eyes, or perhaps you just > don't want to see Jaws coming? Personally, I hate when the run shines in my eyes. >> Why? Is it that you don't want to see the pretty reef and fish on the >> bottom, or that you like the run shining in your eyes, or perhaps you >> just >> don't want to see Jaws coming? > Personally, I hate when the run shines in my eyes. Me too, but I really hate it when Jaws is coming. Lee > >> Why? Is it that you don't want to see the pretty reef and fish on the > >> bottom, or that you like the run shining in your eyes, or perhaps you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lee Perhaps you could find a way to make the run shine in his eyes too... >> > Personally, I hate when the run shines in my eyes. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Perhaps you could find a way to make the run shine in his eyes too... The black run? > >> > Personally, I hate when the run shines in my eyes. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The black run? Whichever run is causing you the problems while he's chasing you. > > One might argue that a Spare Air is near useless at any depth; but, 15 feet > > is an arbitrary depth you chose, obviously not the depth any of us would use > > a snorkel. Try swimming out half a mile and back the same distance to get to > > the dive site and let us know how you like your Spare Air then. > > Half mile swims should be done on your back. Personally, I prefer to do my half mile swims in a boat. YMMV. > Personally, I prefer to do my half mile swims in a boat. That's downright ingenious. > Personally, I prefer to do my half mile swims in a boat. Good idea, usually. The instance that comes to mind is when Limey Dave, Curtis and I swam out to the buoys off Lauderdale by the Sea. The half mile part is just a guess. Curtis or Dave may have a different opinion on the distance. It was not the easiest of swims thanks to north bound (as I recall) currents, but it wasn't all that hard either. We picked up three lobster on the dive. A boat would have been easier, except for a few issues. First, there was no boat ramp nearby and second, there was no boat nearby either . . . well, Dave's was nearby, but I think he was still working on it at the time. The nearest boat was mine, probably 10 miles as the crow flies. Boats do go as the crow files. Figure 15 miles each way, 5 miles of which is no wake zone. So, that's about 3 hours travel time. We swam out and back faster than that. Did I mention that my boat gets one mile to the gallon on high test? At $4.50 a gallon, which is about what high test costs at the marine pumps these days, that's about $135 in fuel alone. Kind of expensive for a dive we could swim to. We swam. Lee > > Personally, I prefer to do my half mile swims in a boat. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Lee That's where the YMMV part kicks in. >> > Personally, I prefer to do my half mile swims in a boat. >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > That's where the YMMV part kicks in. I wish my mileage would vary. >>> I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For >>> example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > why would one do that? It's like trying to breate off your fin u/w Your last line clearly states that snorkels are good for diving. "Normal diving" if fact. Check out my new bluetooth stereo, hey: http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762/20070826Dashboard The hands-free phone is a riot, and it hardwires to my laptop, and the iPod. Were you ever going to post a -real- picture of your truck? >> I've tried this with several snorkels, and have yet to find one that >> is better than my Spare Air twins. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > that's a new one Not hardly. On Aug 27, 4:57 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > Not hardly. The best part is I got to use the word "efficaciousness" in a sentence. > On Aug 27, 4:57 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The best part is I got to use the word "efficaciousness" in a > sentence. Yeah? Try palimpsestuous. Throws into a gran mal. >>>> I can understand in some situations a snorkel can be a hindrance. For >>>> example I have dived sinkholes in the Nullabore and yes a snorkel [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > "Normal diving" if fact. yep because the surface is an intergral part of diving IMHO > Check out my new bluetooth stereo, hey: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Were you ever going to post a -real- picture of your truck? If I remember I will take my camera tonight |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.