> > H. Huntzinger wrote:
> > > > I DON'T dive in any over-head environment (except ice dive
> > > > with a buddy and a rope-tender on the surface).
> > >
> > > ...except for the Devil's Throat.
> > >
> > > ...or any other Cozumel 'Fake Devils'.
> >
> > Or the Santa Rosa wall "swim throughs" or the Palancar Caves,
> > Columbia, Columbia Deep, Palancar Bricks, and lots of other
> > swim-throughs in Cozumel, and numerous others elsewhere in
> > the world.
>
> Yeah, I thought you'd admit to being in more overheads than just the
one
> time you got certified for ice diving a lifetime ago. I was
surprised
> to not see your Little Cayman favorites of Randy's Gazebo or
Marilyn's
> Cut not also mentioned too.
That's why I said "numerous others elsewhere in the world."
You must have learned much about diving by just following my posts. :-)
> > It's pedantic whether those "swim throughs" are considered
> > "over-head environment", in the traditional sense.
>
> Which means with Bob, its a pedantic issue. Bob's definitions not
only
> may vary, but are expected to :-)
>
> An overhead environment is any time that the diver can not ascend
freely
> and directly to the surface. This means that a diversion of even a
"few
> seconds" to find and navigate up through the nearest hole isn't an
> allowable exception even if there's dozens of them present.
See what I mean by "pedantic"? 'Not even a few seconds to find
the nearest hole ...'
It's okay, Hugh. This is a free country to start a NEW RELIGION by
anyone at any time! Are you just starting one now, or have you
started that religion before this post.? :-)
It ain't often that we agree on anything publicly anymore because
you always nitpick my posts for argument.
But here, I can readily agree that we practice DIFFERENT RELIGIONS.
Judging by your stated dogmas (euphemistically called 'definition')
I don't know anybody following your religion.
Hey, but that's okay too.
> > Not interested in debating any nitpicking semantics.
>
> If you wish to use/claim a specific definition on "swim through", you
> need to explicitly state what it is, for the traditional sense does
not
> implicitly or explicitly exclude it from being an Overhead
environment.
That would be pedantic and pedentry wouldn't it? See my religious
explanation above.
> > All of these "swim-throughs" have the common characteristic
> > that you can see the ends of the "tunnels" (swim throughs)
> > at all times during a dive route) sometimes several different
> > exits at the same time) and can discontinue the swim through
> > route by getting out ONE of many swiss-cheese holes in a
> > matter of seconds to open water without any overhead
> > restriction.
>
> A cavern is an overhead environment, even when multiple visible exits
> exist. And when the cavern's exit is below 130fsw (eg Devil's
Throat),
> it is disqualified from being a cavern by traditional measures.
Welcome
> to Cave Diving.
Wow, ANOTHER new definition of "cave diving", any cavern that has an
exit below 130 fsw, even though the same SWIM THROUGH has 100 exits
above 130 fsw?
You forgot to mention a diver is already heading for sure DEATH when
s/he goes below 130 fsw. Didn't you learn that from padi?
Gotta get on my 16 hour plane ride to HKG now. :-)
-- Bob.
H. Huntzinger - 21 Dec 2004 12:43 GMT
> H. Huntzinger wrote:
> > A cavern is an overhead environment, even when multiple visible exits
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> exit below 130 fsw, even though the same SWIM THROUGH has 100 exits
> above 130 fsw?
No, its not a new definition:
The NACD (National Association for Cave Diving)and the NSS-CDS (National
Speleological Society - Cave Diving Section) both define the cavern zone
as within the zone lit by natural light (daylight) and within 130 linear
feet penetration from the surface. The one restricts the dive's maximum
absolute depth to 70ft, and the other to 130ft max.
-hh
Rich Lockyer - 22 Dec 2004 09:11 GMT
>The NACD (National Association for Cave Diving)and the NSS-CDS (National
>Speleological Society - Cave Diving Section) both define the cavern zone
>as within the zone lit by natural light (daylight) and within 130 linear
>feet penetration from the surface. The one restricts the dive's maximum
>absolute depth to 70ft, and the other to 130ft max.
Natural light and 130ft linear. Check.
70ft, or 130ft? Doesn't check.
I've been at 140 once and had plenty of natural daylight.
I've been at 110 dozens of times and have plenty of natural daylight,
even when surface conditions are hard overcast.
I've been at 71ft on damned near every dive I've done and had plenty
of natural daylight.
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
Grumman-581 - 22 Dec 2004 09:14 GMT
> I've been at 71ft on damned near every dive I've done and had plenty
> of natural daylight.
Must be nice... I've been at 30 ft and it was so dark, I couldn't see any
light when I looked upwards (yeah, it was daylight)...
Rich Lockyer - 23 Dec 2004 08:23 GMT
>> I've been at 71ft on damned near every dive I've done and had plenty
>> of natural daylight.
>
>Must be nice... I've been at 30 ft and it was so dark, I couldn't see any
>light when I looked upwards (yeah, it was daylight)...
DIR-F was like that.
Between the dark and the soup viz, we could have done "intro-to-cave"
--- Rich
http://richlockyer.tripod.com/
H. Huntzinger - 22 Dec 2004 11:22 GMT
> >The NACD (National Association for Cave Diving)and the NSS-CDS (National
> >Speleological Society - Cave Diving Section) both define the cavern zone
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> 70ft, or 130ft? Doesn't check.
Its merely a part of their choice of definitions. At 130ft, you're
allowed zero penetration as per the first (penetration+depth<130) rule,
so that's simply repeating an existing limit. At 70ft depth, this is
simply choosing to be a little more conservative.
> I've been at 140 once and had plenty of natural daylight.
> I've been at 110 dozens of times and have plenty of natural daylight,
> even when surface conditions are hard overcast.
>
> I've been at 71ft on damned near every dive I've done and had plenty
> of natural daylight.
We've all had dives where there was "enough" light at depth X. Ditto
for some shallower dives (probably up North) that were darker than a
Caribbean night dive and needed a light even at high noon.
But it doesn't matter. What does matter is that the caving agencies of
the NACD and the NSS-CDS both have defined their dividing line between
cavern and cave. They're reasonably similar too. They obviously use
them as an aid in determining appropriate training for each progression.
And it was sufficient to show that Bob's accusation that I had invented
a new definition was yet another falsehood.
FWIW, I would expect that a lot of us probably have crossed these
definitions of ow-->cavern-->cave without having the appropriate formal
Specialty Certification Card, just like how there's been many OW-I
divers who go dive deeper than 60fsw without an AOW card. I know I have.
-hh
Reef Fish - 22 Dec 2004 11:25 GMT
> > H. Huntzinger wrote:
> > > A cavern is an overhead environment, even when multiple visible exits
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> No, its not a new definition:
Okay. It's an old religion, and an old crock of sh.t then, of which
Hugh Huntzinger is always full.
> The NACD (National Association for Cave Diving)and the NSS-CDS (National
> Speleological Society - Cave Diving Section) both define the cavern zone
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> -hh
Is that gospel? Why should anyone with a brain to think for themselves
need to use a definition YOU want to use?
You sound like a Southern Baptist waving his bible; or someone who
calls himself a Christian Scientist and tell us that the bible says
don't use medical doctors or modern medicine.
You are so inexperienced in diving that it's laughable.
I've been at 200 fsw in Cozumel and could SEE the surface from there!
At 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, ... fsw in Punta Sur, there is ALWAYS
plenty of ambient light, even on cloudy days.
-- Bob.
P.S. I am enjoying my Fragrant Harbor view from my room on the
61st floor of the Conrad International. It's ALMOST as good as
diving in a swim-through with good vis. ;-)
-- Bob.