Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
ArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneous
Discussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK Scuba
DirectoryScuba Clubs

Scuba Forum / Scuba Locations / August 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Turks and Caicos - Liveaboard Comparisons

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
nbdylan - 02 Aug 2005 04:35 GMT
Recent feedback on Liveaboards and itineraries wiill be greatly
appreciated. My wife and I have 3oo+ dives and have done several
liveaboards in Bahamas and Belize. We are interested in T&C. Want to
dive, dive and dive. Land excursions not necessary. Thanks in advance
Nelson
Dan Bracuk - 02 Aug 2005 22:46 GMT
"nbdylan" <nbdylan@aol.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in:
:Recent feedback on Liveaboards and itineraries wiill be greatly
:appreciated. My wife and I have 3oo+ dives and have done several
:liveaboards in Bahamas and Belize. We are interested in T&C. Want to
:dive, dive and dive. Land excursions not necessary. Thanks in advance

Peter Hughes, Aggressor, and Explorer all have boats that cruise T&C.
If you have sailed with any of these fleets, the way you were treated
on their other boats is something I would consider relevent.  Myself,
I have sailed with all three and like Peter Hughes the best.

Something else you may consider important is that, unless I am
mistaken, the Explorer has shared heads.  The Wind Dancer has private
heads and Aggressor has boat info on their website.

At worse, you can put the names of the three boats in a hat, and pick
one.  It's not as if any of them are bad.

Dan Bracuk
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
Ross Garrett - 03 Aug 2005 01:02 GMT
>  Myself,
> I have sailed with all three and like Peter Hughes the best.
>
> Something else you may consider important is that, unless I am
> mistaken, the Explorer has shared heads.  The Wind Dancer has private
> heads

Some of those who have been diving liveaboards for a long time will remember
when nobody had private ensuite heads and showers. All Aggressors used to
have shared heads and showers. Then Peter came along and instituted private
ensuite heads in some of their boats and eventually all, and everyone else
had to follow suit if they could. It doesn't seem like much, but after that
5th dive of the day, when dinner will be served in an hour, not having to
wait in line to clean-up was an incredible change.

Peter is a sometimes squirrelly character, and has fallen down face first
more than once, but he truly did revolutionize the liveaboard industry to
the enjoyment of all of us. Peter actually made the Aggressor's better
boats.
Dan Bracuk - 03 Aug 2005 02:11 GMT
"Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> pounded away at his
keyboard resulting in:
: Peter actually made the Aggressor's better
:boats.

Terrycloth robes being just one example.

Dan Bracuk
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
Ross Garrett - 03 Aug 2005 17:54 GMT
> "Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> pounded away at his
> keyboard resulting in:
> : Peter actually made the Aggressor's better
> :boats.
>
> Terrycloth robes being just one example.

Yeah, I agree. I have never been able to put my finger on precisely the
reason Aggressor feel second notch to Dancers. They are essentially the same
operations anymore (once one fleet makes a change the other follows suit
quickly) but for some reason the Dancer Fleet simply feels a bit more
integrated, a bit more polished and maybe a bit more consistent.

Having said that, one of the better liveaboards I have ever been on was the
Kona Aggressor, back in 1996-'97, before they switched boats. That Alaskan
partner Wayne had for most of the boats in Truk, Palau and Hawaii, sure did
have some nice vessels.
Reef Fish - 04 Aug 2005 16:47 GMT
> > "Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> pounded away at his
> > keyboard resulting in:
> > : Peter actually made the Aggressor's better
> > :boats.
> >
> > Terrycloth robes being just one example.

One that I've NEVER used.  Been on Dancers about 25 times.

> Yeah, I agree. I have never been able to put my finger on precisely the
> reason Aggressor feel second notch to Dancers.

Where did you get that idea.

Whenever the locations are served by both the Dancers and Aggressors,
such as Turks & Caicos, Belize, Bay Islands, Palau, etc., the diving
and the boats are generally a toss-up near equal.  I've been on
BOTH fleets in those locations, more than once each.

Some boats are slightly better, some slightly worse.  The CREW makes
a big difference.  They change all the time.

Then there are locations NOT served by the Dancer:  Coco's Island,
Tahiti, Cayman Islands.  Those are THREE of the best liveaboards
I've ever dived -- ALL Aggressors.   NO Dancer in any of those
lications.

> They are essentially the same
> operations anymore (once one fleet makes a change the other follows suit
> quickly) but for some reason the Dancer Fleet simply feels a bit more
> integrated, a bit more polished and maybe a bit more consistent

That part is true.  But you have to understand the STRUCTURE of those
operations.  Peter runs the Dancer Fleet and OWNS the boats.  He can
make decisions Wayne Hasson cannot because the Aggressor boats are
franchised to different owners -- many of them locals in the dive
locations.   While Wayne tries to maintain the same overall QUALITY
of the fleet (which he does well), he CANNOT make certain operational
decisions Peter Hughes can on the Dancer Fleet.

I like both Fleets and have been on as many of one as the other.

> Having said that, one of the better liveaboards I have ever been on was the
> Kona Aggressor, back in 1996-'97, before they switched boats.

Kona diving is generally inferior to diving elsewhere.  That's why
they have smaller boats and can't fill them.  I was on a Kona
Aggressor about the same time you did.  Decided that was the last
time I would dive Hawaii on a liveaboard.

> That Alaskan
> partner Wayne had for most of the boats in Truk, Palau and Hawaii, sure did
> have some nice vessels.

The Truk Aggressor is the only one I will never dive because I don't
dive in overhead environments and I dislike wrecks.  :-)  I thought
the Truk Aggressor is generally NOT well rated, compared to Thorfinn
and some other operations there.

At any rate, the ONLY thing that is true about those two fleets is
that they can ALWAYS be counted on for good crew, good service, and
good diving, with very little variance, no matter what the location
is.

And that says a LOT.

-- Bob.
Greg Mossman - 04 Aug 2005 17:51 GMT
> Then there are locations NOT served by the Dancer:  Coco's Island,
> Tahiti, Cayman Islands.  Those are THREE of the best liveaboards
> I've ever dived -- ALL Aggressors.   NO Dancer in any of those
> lications.

Haven't done the Cayman Aggressor yet, but I can't say that Tahiti and
Okeanos were even close to the best liveaboards I've dove.  The Tahiti boat
was very nice, but was staffed by a lousy crew.  I've spoken with others who
didn't have any of the problems we had on our trip.  But the Okeanos boat
was one of the most uncomfortable liveaboards I've ever done (see my recent
trip report for detail).

> That part is true.  But you have to understand the STRUCTURE of those
> operations.  Peter runs the Dancer Fleet and OWNS the boats.  He can
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> of the fleet (which he does well), he CANNOT make certain operational
> decisions Peter Hughes can on the Dancer Fleet.

Franchisors have a lot of pull.  Sometimes they can demand things from their
franchisees that an owner wouldn't demand of his own boats.  How long would
the Okeanos Aggressor last on its own, say, if Wayne "abandoned ship"?

> Kona diving is generally inferior to diving elsewhere.  That's why
> they have smaller boats and can't fill them.  I was on a Kona
> Aggressor about the same time you did.  Decided that was the last
> time I would dive Hawaii on a liveaboard.

After talking to people that have ranked their Kona trip as one of the best
boats they've done, I'm considering it for the future.

> The Truk Aggressor is the only one I will never dive because I don't
> dive in overhead environments and I dislike wrecks.  :-)  I thought
> the Truk Aggressor is generally NOT well rated, compared to Thorfinn
> and some other operations there.

You'll also never dive it because it no longer exists.  It moved (or is
moving) to Sulawesi, AFAIK.  Probably because it couldn't compete with the
Odyssey.

> At any rate, the ONLY thing that is true about those two fleets is
> that they can ALWAYS be counted on for good crew, good service, and
> good diving, with very little variance, no matter what the location
> is.

YMOV
Dan Bracuk - 04 Aug 2005 22:40 GMT
"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:After talking to people that have ranked their Kona trip as one of the best
:boats they've done, I'm considering it for the future.

To what are they comparing it?

Dan Bracuk
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
Ross Garrett - 04 Aug 2005 17:59 GMT
>> I have never been able to put my finger on precisely the
>> reason Aggressor feel second notch to Dancers.
>
> Where did you get that idea.

It's just a feeling, and I don't actually know why it comes across that way.
There's really nothing definitive to support that feeling but Dancers in
general feel better. I know...it's crazy.

>> They are essentially the same
>> operations anymore (once one fleet makes a change the other follows suit
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> That part is true.  But you have to understand the STRUCTURE of those
> operations.  Peter runs the Dancer Fleet and OWNS the boats.

Sun Bank (who I think has now been bought) is primary owner of all his
boats. Divi owned his first boat,  then he broke from them and went on his
own using Sun Bank as the lender, but as he got into some trouble in the mid
and late '90s they came on as partners. His situation isn't a lot different
than Wayne's anymore in that he runs the service portion while ownership
remains in others hands. He even did/does some type of boat management with
the Febrina in PNG and had some kind of agreement with the Telita as well.

> He can
> make decisions Wayne Hasson cannot because the Aggressor boats are
> franchised to different owners -- many of them locals in the dive
> locations.   While Wayne tries to maintain the same overall QUALITY
> of the fleet (which he does well), he CANNOT make certain operational
> decisions Peter Hughes can on the Dancer Fleet.

It very well may be that Peter has more authority and latitude in his
arrangement with the boat owner than Wayne has with his franchise
agreements. That's information I am not privy to.

> I like both Fleets and have been on as many of one as the other.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Aggressor about the same time you did.  Decided that was the last
> time I would dive Hawaii on a liveaboard.

I don't specifically feel the diving was inferior to diving most elsewhere.
In fact I'd prefer diving Kona than most places in the Caribbean. The
turtles, mantas, dolphins, whales and invertebrate life alone make Kona more
attractive to me than most of the Caribbean. But I also found all the macro
particularly satisfying. The only problem with Kona is: I can get all that
stuff plus corals and schooling fish in other locales.

I was speaking more to the quality of the vessel and service. And in that
case the Kona Aggressor was one of the best I have ever been on. Small,
beautiful, rode well, fast, great food and great cabins and cabin service.
Really...just about everything that makes a liveaboard vessel great, the
Kona Aggressor had in sufficient amount.

Caveat: the Kona Aggressor I was on was moved to another location a few
years after our trip.

> The Truk Aggressor is the only one I will never dive because I don't
> dive in overhead environments and I dislike wrecks.  :-)  I thought
> the Truk Aggressor is generally NOT well rated, compared to Thorfinn
> and some other operations there.

I couldn't say. I last dived the Truk Aggressor in 1995 -'94? and the boat
was very nice, but my favorite boat in Truk is the Odyssey. The only thing I
don't like about Truk diving was the particulate in the water.

> At any rate, the ONLY thing that is true about those two fleets is
> that they can ALWAYS be counted on for good crew, good service, and
> good diving, with very little variance, no matter what the location
> is.
>
> And that says a LOT.

No doubt and I didn't mean to imply Aggressors were deficient, but only that
they don't seem to convey to, or imprint on, the passengers (or me) the same
polish or completeness that Dancer boats do. Fact is, if I want to visit a
location that has both fleets....say Galapagos...my first choice between the
three boats would be the Dancer.

Like I said...I don't particulalry know why, but the Dancer Fleet just
presents better.....and that stays with me longer. Somehow Peter has managed
to create an impresson that his boats are a notch above. He did it with his
land-based shops a couple decades ago as well.
Dan Bracuk - 04 Aug 2005 22:45 GMT
"Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> pounded away at his
keyboard resulting in:
:It's just a feeling, and I don't actually know why it comes across that way.
:There's really nothing definitive to support that feeling but Dancers in
:general feel better. I know...it's crazy.

Maybe it's the hot chocolate and Bailey's after the night dive.  Or
the fact that they heat upd the after dive towels in the dryer while
we are diving.

Dan Bracuk
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
Dan Bracuk - 04 Aug 2005 22:52 GMT
"Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> pounded away at his
keyboard resulting in:

:No doubt and I didn't mean to imply Aggressors were deficient, but only that
:they don't seem to convey to, or imprint on, the passengers (or me) the same
:polish or completeness that Dancer boats do. Fact is, if I want to visit a
:location that has both fleets....say Galapagos...my first choice between the
:three boats would be the Dancer.

Can I change my original answer?  One other factor I was thinking
about was the departure port.  My last Wind Dancer trip left from
Grand Turk, which meant an additional flight.

So I thought I would look up where each of the three boats left from.

Aggressor leaves from Provo, that's good.
Explorer also leaves from Provo, equally good.
Peter Hughes no longer has a boat in T&C.  Oh well.

Dan Bracuk
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
Reef Fish - 05 Aug 2005 00:18 GMT
> "Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> pounded away at his
> keyboard resulting in:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> about was the departure port.  My last Wind Dancer trip left from
> Grand Turk, which meant an additional flight.

But that's transient and seasonal!   Peter has whale-watching season
and short diving seasons in that part of T&K.   Of the half dozen or
so times I've dived the T&C on Dancers, they all originated from
Provo.

On second thought, the Dancers are OUT of T&C altogether now, when
I checked their website.  The Wind Dancer has been in TOBAGO for
some time.  Dived on it and had a flamewar with Chris Pflum (who
was on the same charter) against some travel agent Forest Aten.  :-)

> So I thought I would look up where each of the three boats left from.
>
> Aggressor leaves from Provo, that's good.
> Explorer also leaves from Provo, equally good.
> Peter Hughes no longer has a boat in T&C.  Oh well.

That reminded me of an email I got from Peter Hughes that had been
sitting in my mailbox unread for two days.  :-)

He was promoting the new Ocean Dancer in the Maldives.  But our
knowledgeable Asian diving friends on the Scuba-SE list were
more or less unanimous that Maldives are at best mediocre.

Also, the Fleet seemed to have shrunk and the Dancers are hitting
some secondary locations like Granada and the Grenadines.

-- Bob.
Ross Garrett - 05 Aug 2005 00:46 GMT
> He was promoting the new Ocean Dancer in the Maldives.  But our
> knowledgeable Asian diving friends on the Scuba-SE list were
> more or less unanimous that Maldives are at best mediocre.

The Maldives is some 1,200 islands (at least before the recent tsunami)
scattered around some 120,000 square miles of ocean. There is some fabulous
diving in the Maldives to be accessed by a cruise boat. Most people's
experience there is from land based operations and those sites have been
diminished for some time.  I wouldn't doubt Dancer's ability to find some
great diving in remote areas of the archipeligo.

> Also, the Fleet seemed to have shrunk and the Dancers are hitting
> some secondary locations like Granada and the Grenadines.

Hughes will be sending Komodo Dancer to Raja Ampat soon, and I think I read
that Wayne was in discussions, or maybe concluded them, to send an Aggressor
to Raja Ampat as well. Both good moves because that is the best diving I
have done in 20 years. Somewhat tough if the tidal currents are not
calculated accurately for the dive times, but a place as magical as
Galapagos was in the early 80's, although for different reasons. Once in the
water at Raja Ampat you know you are in a special place that will not be
special for long.

It has always confused me somewhat that Wayne has avoided Indonesia and PNG.
Do you have any idea why?
Reef Fish - 05 Aug 2005 01:11 GMT
> > He was promoting the new Ocean Dancer in the Maldives.  But our
> > knowledgeable Asian diving friends on the Scuba-SE list were
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> experience there is from land based operations and those sites have been
> diminished for some time.

That's certainly true.  The Red Sea and Maldive divers are almost
exclusively landbased.

> I wouldn't doubt Dancer's ability to find some
> great diving in remote areas of the archipeligo.

Not necessarily.  Certainly possible.  That was what Peter was hoping
to find some undiscovered jewels in Tobago.  He found a 30 ft layer
of silt during the rainy season instead.  :-)

> > Also, the Fleet seemed to have shrunk and the Dancers are hitting
> > some secondary locations like Granada and the Grenadines.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> It has always confused me somewhat that Wayne has avoided Indonesia and PNG.
> Do you have any idea why?

No idea.  Foreign franchises are always tricky.  It's a combination
of politics and finding the right boat owners.

-- Bob.
Ross Garrett - 05 Aug 2005 02:07 GMT
> That's certainly true.  The Red Sea and Maldive divers are almost
> exclusively landbased.

That is correct and one must remember that Europeans were diving the
Maldives before Americans had discovered the Caymans. The Maldives have seen
a lot of divers and suffered a lot of damage, so the stuff land-based ops
can access are of quite questionable quality these days.

>> I wouldn't doubt Dancer's ability to find some
>> great diving in remote areas of the archipeligo.

> Not necessarily.  Certainly possible.  That was what Peter was hoping
> to find some undiscovered jewels in Tobago.  He found a 30 ft layer
> of silt during the rainy season instead.  :-)

My suggestion wasn't based upon Peter's abilities but rather my own
experiences in Maldivian waters. There is great diving known there, the
problem has been easy accessibility. Anyone's liveaboard will reap the
rewards.
Jason - 05 Aug 2005 14:50 GMT
> That's certainly true.  The Red Sea and Maldive divers are almost
> exclusively landbased.

Not true. There are a lot of day boats in the Red Sea, but there are also
a lot of liveaboards. The further south you go, the more it's the preserve
of just the liveaboard boats.

There are some liveaboards in the Maldives. Not a huge amount, but it's
probably in double figures. How much of an advantage a liveaboard is there
is another matter. The atolls you're allowed to dive in are the ones with
the resorts in them. So no site is more than an hour or two from a
landbased operation.

You do seem some diver damage there, but it was the coral bleaching that
had the most effect. It is recovering quite quickly. Tops of the reefs
still aren't what they used to be though.

Jason

Signature

http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/ for Aussie diving reports including
Cape Tribulation, Cairns, Airlie Beach, Exmouth and the HMAS Swan

Reef Fish - 05 Aug 2005 15:15 GMT
> > That's certainly true.  The Red Sea and Maldive divers are almost
> > exclusively landbased.
>
> Not true. There are a lot of day boats in the Red Sea, but there are also
> a lot of liveaboards. The further south you go, the more it's the preserve
> of just the liveaboard boats.

Another POM (used non-derogatorily of course <G>> from the UK.  :-)
Not sure if you're one of the Olde Tymer Jasons or a new Jason,
welcome just the same.  <A new Jason, I think, judging from your
webpage -- a nice one BTW>

When one is talking about LIVEABOARDS, as Ross and I were discussing,
any "day boat" is "landbased".

The "further south" is not easily accessible by day boats, and
that was why Peter Hughes TRIED to have a liveaboard running
there that dive both the north and the remote south -- that was
in the mid-1990s I believe.

I was one of the FIRST passengers to sign up for that Red-Sea
charter, but it was cancalled because only three divers signed
up for it.  :-)   It was traveller's hell (at least at that time)
for divers from the USA to get to even Peter's liveaboard.  One
HAD to stay overnight at Cairo -- I believe the travel was
arranged by the PhD Fkeet travek agent -- for the AIR connection,
then take busses, ride camels, and walk for days in the desert to
get to the liveaboard pier.  :-)

That was my first and last attempt to dive the Red Sea, while
one of brit friends, the "parrotfish" with whom I dived in the
Cozumel NEDfest, because of his colorful diving attire, dives
the Red Sea all the time because it is so convenient to get there
from the UK!  But I could leave home in the morning, arrive
Cozumel the SAME morning, and DIVE in the afternoon the same
day.  :-)  That's why I stopped counting after 1200 dives in
Cozumel several years ago.

> There are some liveaboards in the Maldives. Not a huge amount, but it's
> probably in double figures. How much of an advantage a liveaboard is there
> is another matter. The atolls you're allowed to dive in are the ones with
> the resorts in them. So no site is more than an hour or two from a
> landbased operation.

So, I gather you agree that my Asian diving friends who dive the
Maldives from landbased operations are not overly biased in their
negative assessments about diving the Maldives, compared to diving
in Indonesia, the Indo-Pacific, and Australia.

-- Bob.

> You do seem some diver damage there, but it was the coral bleaching that
> had the most effect. It is recovering quite quickly. Tops of the reefs
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/ for Aussie diving reports including
> Cape Tribulation, Cairns, Airlie Beach, Exmouth and the HMAS Swan
Jason - 05 Aug 2005 16:42 GMT
> When one is talking about LIVEABOARDS, as Ross and I were discussing, any
> "day boat" is "landbased".

I know. And there are loads of liveaboards in the Red Sea. They're just
marketed to Europeans, unsurprisingly. I did a northern Red Sea trip on
Cyclone back in December. That one company, www.scuba.co.uk, have got 8
liveaboards in the Red Sea alone, and there are plenty of other companies
around. The levels of service are probably lower than those marketed for
North Americans, but so are the prices.

> So, I gather you agree that my Asian diving friends who dive the
> Maldives from landbased operations are not overly biased in their
> negative assessments about diving the Maldives, compared to diving in
> Indonesia, the Indo-Pacific, and Australia.

In Indonesia, I've only done Bali and wasn't greatly impressed. I think
the Maldives is a lot better than the Great Barrier Reef. Coral isn't much
worse, though different, but the fish life is far, far better in the
Maldives.

And they're certainly better than anywhere I've been in the Caribbean. I
met a dive guide in Cozumel, whom I'd last met working in the Maldives.
Small world. After a couple of dives at Palancar, our comment was that it
was similar to the Maldives, but without the fish.

And from the UK, the flight times aren't that different.

Jason

Signature

http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/ for Australian trip reports including
New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia

Reef Fish - 05 Aug 2005 17:30 GMT
> > When one is talking about LIVEABOARDS, as Ross and I were discussing, any
> > "day boat" is "landbased".
>
> I know. And there are loads of liveaboards in the Red Sea. They're just
> marketed to Europeans, unsurprisingly.

Whatever that means, as Cairns liveaboards are matketed to the
Japenese and Aussie divers?  ;)

> > So, I gather you agree that my Asian diving friends who dive the
> > Maldives from landbased operations are not overly biased in their
> > negative assessments about diving the Maldives, compared to diving in
> > Indonesia, the Indo-Pacific, and Australia.
>
> In Indonesia, I've only done Bali and wasn't greatly impressed.

I am an clueless newbie when it comes to diving Asia and the
Indo-Pacific, and I wasn't greatly impressed with Bali diving
either, though it was very good and I was fortunate to encounter
the only mola mola I had ever seen diving the Batu Aba site.

> And they're certainly better than anywhere I've been in the Caribbean.

I think that's an unfair generalization, probably the result that
you HAVEN'T dived many locations in the Caribbean.

> I
> met a dive guide in Cozumel, whom I'd last met working in the Maldives.
> Small world. After a couple of dives at Palancar, our comment was that it
> was similar to the Maldives, but without the fish.

LOL!  Different kinds of fish perhaps, but if you want to see fish,
you'll see plenty at the Punta Tunich site of Palancar.  No fish
on the Santa Rosa Wall, and not many fish on the other Palancar
walls either, because you dive the massive coral structures, the
swim throughs, and the rich corals and high vis on the Palancar
walls between 150 and 200 fsw.  :-)

The owner of Dive Paradise, Apple, started her diving career in
the Maldives.  There she met my scuba-shop owner friend Paolo
in South Carolina.  If you think that's "small world", I dived
with Pedro and his brother who BOTH moved from Cozumel to the
Maldives.

In the case of Pedro, I think he was forced to move because I
wrote about a dive in which he took an uncertified student to
164 fsw (I knew because I loaned him the computer <G>) when he
was supposed to dive to a "secret wall" with me to 150 fsw.
At any rate, the Scuba-L Fascist, Nick Simicich apparently
reported him to PADI, and PADI must have pulled Pedro's
Instructor rank and every diving PADI credential to allow
Pedro to make a living in Cozumel in the dive business,

But Pedro was a safe diver -- a little bit on the crazy side
perhaps, and my wife and I held his student down for the
long "safety stop" when they sucked his tank down to 100 psi
and he had to surface.

But Pedro was back to Cozumel in 1996 (working for Papa Hogs)
and my friend Jeff wrote about Pedro in 1996:

http://tinyurl.com/8o873

Jeff dived with me and Pedro in both 1994 and 1996.  Jeff was
narked both times, below 120 fsw, when we were just looking for
the mythical "Alexandria Wall".   There was an undercut, but
there was no such thing as the Alexzandria Wall in Cozumel.
Pedro just made it up, and later admitted it, when he realized
that I had done every divable wall in Cozumel.  :-)

But I digress on your "small world" remark.  It is indeed a
Small World.

-- Bob.
Jason - 05 Aug 2005 17:53 GMT
>> I know. And there are loads of liveaboards in the Red Sea. They're just
>> marketed to Europeans, unsurprisingly.
>
> Whatever that means, as Cairns liveaboards are matketed to the Japenese
> and Aussie divers?  ;)

A lot of them are marketed as packages with the charter flights and
everything from the UK included.

>> And they're certainly better than anywhere I've been in the Caribbean.
>
> I think that's an unfair generalization, probably the result that you
> HAVEN'T dived many locations in the Caribbean.

Hmm, Mexico, Bahamas, Barbados, St Lucia, St Kitts, Antigua, Cuba and
Aruba. It's a few places.

> LOL!  Different kinds of fish perhaps, but if you want to see fish,
> you'll see plenty at the Punta Tunich site of Palancar.  No fish on the
> Santa Rosa Wall, and not many fish on the other Palancar walls either,
> because you dive the massive coral structures, the swim throughs, and
> the rich corals and high vis on the Palancar walls between 150 and 200
> fsw.  :-)

There just aren't the nutrients in the water in the Caribbean that they're
are in the Maldives. This does sometimes mean the viz can be down, but the
sheer number of fish more than makes up for it, and usually it's good.
Besides, the mantas and whale sharks have to eat something.

I wouldn't go on a snorkelling holiday to the Maldives, because above 20
feet, the coral still isn't great. Below that, it's fine. There's also a
lot of soft coral that seems to have taken advantage of the changing
conditions. There is a reason I've been 11 times. And that's not usual.
It's a place that has a lot of return visitors.

Jason

Signature

http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/ for Aussie diving reports including
the Coral Sea, Ningaloo reef, the Solitaries and Byron Bay

Reef Fish - 05 Aug 2005 18:38 GMT
> >> I know. And there are loads of liveaboards in the Red Sea. They're just
> >> marketed to Europeans, unsurprisingly.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> A lot of them are marketed as packages with the charter flights and
> everything from the UK included.

Ok.  That made more sense.  In fact I do recall in the few times I've
been to London the past few years (almost an annual pilgrimmage
it seemed when I had to get enough miles to make 75K miles for the
year -- that's why I was always in London in November or December <g>)
I notice the newspaper and travel agency ads about those packages.

Perhaps the NEXT time I go to London, I'll plan some extra days to
take side trips to the Red Sea and elsewhere from LONDON.  That
may turn out to be the EASIEST way for ME to go).

> >> And they're certainly better than anywhere I've been in the Caribbean.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Hmm, Mexico, Bahamas, Barbados, St Lucia, St Kitts, Antigua, Cuba and
> Aruba. It's a few places.

Mostly crummy places, such as Mexico (where?), Barbados, St. Kitts,
Antigua, Aruba.   Been there.  Done that (ALL).  :-)  And the
Bahamas are not even part of the Caribbean.  Been there a couple
hundred dives.

> > LOL!  Different kinds of fish perhaps, but if you want to see fish,
> > you'll see plenty at the Punta Tunich site of Palancar.  No fish on the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> sheer number of fish more than makes up for it, and usually it's good.
> Besides, the mantas and whale sharks have to eat something.

What you said are all true.  My only POINT is that you can't make
GLOBAL comparisons on such vast regions.  You not only have to
talk about specific LOCATIONS, but specific dive SITES within those
locations.   And when you do that, you'll find they are Apples and
Oranges -- not comparable in both their goods and bads.

> I wouldn't go on a snorkelling holiday to the Maldives, because above 20
> feet, the coral still isn't great. Below that, it's fine. There's also a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/ for Aussie diving reports including
> the Coral Sea, Ningaloo reef, the Solitaries and Byron Bay

According to my friend whose local dive is the Shelly Beach in
Sydney, that's far better than most of the locations and cites
you and I have named.  :-)  And with much truth too.  When I
was last there in 2003, I declined getting wet because of my
religion (Warm Water Wimp).  But this was a few things my
friend said about Shelly Beach and Sparrow's Fart diving in
Sydney:

DS> giant cuttlefish, porcupinefish, flutemouths and lots of uvver
stuff!)

DS> grey nurse sharks, seadragons, heaps of Port Jackson sharks
DS> I haven't seen a Mola-Mola there - yet!  (But I haven't given
DS> up hope!)  But in February, I have seen a Manta, Eagle rays,
DS> wobbegongs, angel sharks and cat sharks.  There'a family of
DS> whaler sharks, the ever present blue groupers, (which is nothing
DS> to do with the tedmperature of the water!<bwg>) and, of course,
DS> the Weedy Seadragons.

DS> three southern right whales passed by the stern of the
DS< coast to the second dive site underneath the North Head lookout at
the
DS> entrance to Sydney Harbour.  The divers missed seeing the huge pod
DS> of dolphins that surrounded the anchored boat. :-)

So, there are good stuff to see no matter WHERE you dive.  You just
have to know WHERE to find WHAT, and can't rightfully say X is better
than Y when X and Y both have thousands and thosands of dive sites.

-- BOb.
Greg Mossman - 07 Aug 2005 18:40 GMT
>> Hmm, Mexico, Bahamas, Barbados, St Lucia, St Kitts, Antigua, Cuba and
>> Aruba. It's a few places.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Bahamas are not even part of the Caribbean.  Been there a couple
> hundred dives.

How many dives did you say you have off Cuba?  I must have missed that part.

Reef Fish - 08 Aug 2005 04:33 GMT
> >> Hmm, Mexico, Bahamas, Barbados, St Lucia, St Kitts, Antigua, Cuba and
> >> Aruba. It's a few places.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> How many dives did you say you have off Cuba?  I must have missed that part.

For a lawyer, I thought you read better than that.

Notice in MY list of "Done that (ALL)", there is the conspicuous
(to any careful reader) absence of St. Lucia and Cuba.

-- Bob.
Greg Mossman - 08 Aug 2005 15:20 GMT
>> How many dives did you say you have off Cuba?  I must have missed that
>> part.
>
> For a lawyer, I thought you read better than that.

I thought so too.  That's why I was confused by the word "ALL".

> Notice in MY list of "Done that (ALL)", there is the conspicuous
> (to any careful reader) absence of St. Lucia and Cuba.

I noticed that about St. Lucia too, but then I haven't been there either.
No A/C.
Jason - 08 Aug 2005 20:42 GMT
> named.  :-)  And with much truth too.  When I was last there in 2003, I
> declined getting wet because of my religion (Warm Water Wimp).  But this

You missed out. Some of my best dives in Oz have been places like Byron
Bay, around Brisbane or just north of Sydney. Especially as the coldwater
Pacific fish are all pretty unfamiliar to me.

I remember doing one dive near Brisbane. Went down, saw a leopard shark.
Was quite excited as it was only the second time I'd ever seen one. 20
leopard sharks and several shovel nose rays later, the novelty had worn
off a bit.

Mind you, I've heard people rave about Jervis bay, but the two dives I did
there were nothing special.

Jason

Signature

http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/ for Australian trip reports including
New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia

Ross Garrett - 05 Aug 2005 18:20 GMT
>> That's certainly true.  The Red Sea and Maldive divers are almost
>> exclusively landbased.
>
> Not true. There are a lot of day boats in the Red Sea, but there are also
> a lot of liveaboards. The further south you go, the more it's the preserve
> of just the liveaboard boats.

The fact that there are numerous liveaboards plying Egyptian Red Sea waters
doesn't negate the fact that those waters are overwhelmingly (almost
exclusively) dived by day-boaters. It's really nothing but a numbers issue
and on that point Reef Fish wasn't incorrect. The vast majority of
diver-days in the Red Sea occur from land, and the land-based system seems
to be growing as Egypt develops and installs more and more roads and
services to accomodate the growing resort placement.

> There are some liveaboards in the Maldives. Not a huge amount, but it's
> probably in double figures.

Actually, I believe it is over twenty now...which is precious few for such
an expanse of ocean.

> How much of an advantage a liveaboard is there
> is another matter

Oh, I think it is an immense advantage. I distinctly found my trip on the
Keema to be of a much higher quality of diving than either of my land-based
visits. No question in my mind that to see the better diving in Maldives one
must do it from a proper liveaboard with the proper itinerary.

> The atolls you're allowed to dive in are the ones with
> the resorts in them.

There are what 200 or so inhabited island in the Maldives? That leaves,
depending on whether your count is pre or post-tsunami, a minimum of 1,000
inhabitable island/atolls and 5,000+/- coral atolls remaining, and they are
not even close to all being set-offs. That is a lot of available diving that
day boats cannot reach as well a a lot of diving outside the atolls as well
as along the channels. Gourgeous diving really. My best dives were not in
the atolls, they were in the channels where the currents ran quite strong at
times. Really wonderful pelagic and schooling action in the channels and
passes.

> So no site is more than an hour or two from a
> landbased operation.

There are hundreds of known sites more than 2 hours from a land-based
operation. Heck the island chain itself is 11 or 12 hundred miles long. The
problem I saw there was that most of these are without permanent mooring.
The only charted divesites seem to be the ones land-based ops
frequent....other than the 30 or 40 sites the liveaboards use to advertise.
Jason - 08 Aug 2005 19:56 GMT

>> The atolls you're allowed to dive in are the ones with the resorts in
>> them.
>
> There are what 200 or so inhabited island in the Maldives? That leaves,
> depending on whether your count is pre or post-tsunami, a minimum of 1,000
> inhabitable island/atolls and 5,000+/- coral atolls remaining, and they

No. The 1200 island figure quoted includes many which are tiny. Not
inhabitable by any standards. Some of them are just a couple of bushes and
a sandbank.

And it's obvious you don't know what an atoll is. There probably aren't
5000 atolls in the world. There are 26 in the Maldives. Those that have no
resorts in them are out of bounds to tourists, even liveaboards. There are
a couple of atolls which only have one or two resorts, so there will be
unexplored sites in some of them, but most of the land based operations do
all day safaris. Even in a slow dhoni, it's possible to go from one side
of most of the atolls to another or even to another atoll. Meedhupparu
dive school, which is in Raa, visits sites in Baa and Lhaviyani.

> are not even close to all being set-offs. That is a lot of available
> diving that day boats cannot reach as well a a lot of diving outside the
> atolls as well as along the channels. Gourgeous diving really. My best
> dives were not in the atolls, they were in the channels where the currents
> ran quite strong at times. Really wonderful pelagic and schooling action
> in the channels and passes.

The channels are in the atolls. They're the entrances. There's no diving
outside other than on the outer atoll walls. Everywhere else, the sea bed
is at several thousand feet.

Jason

Signature

See http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/ for Caribbean trip reports
including Aruba, Cuba, Grand Bahama, Barbados, St Lucia and Mexico

Ross Garrett - 08 Aug 2005 20:51 GMT
>>> The atolls you're allowed to dive in are the ones with the resorts in
>>> them.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> No.

Jason, you say the island chain of the Maldives is not atoll based except in
the case of the 26 that have coral surrounding a lagoon (the proverbial
Atolu), you say no liveaboards dive the waters near uninhabited islands
because you have never been on one that did (indeed you don't sound like you
have been on one at all),  you say all the sea bed beyond the classic atolls
is thousands of feet deep, you say that outside of the already inhabited
islands non other are habitable (clump of sand and bushes), you say the only
channels and passes are at the entrances to the classic atolls, etc. etc.

Bottom line is that you are either a liar or distressingly incorrect and I
don't have the time to discuss this with a person guilty of either.

You have a very good day (or in this case evening) and enjoy your next
diving adventure.
Jason - 08 Aug 2005 21:23 GMT

> Jason, you say the island chain of the Maldives is not atoll based except
> in the case of the 26 that have coral surrounding a lagoon (the proverbial

Never said anything of the sort.

> Atolu), you say no liveaboards dive the waters near uninhabited islands
> because you have never been on one that did (indeed you don't sound like

Again, never said this.

> atolls is thousands of feet deep, you say that outside of the already
> inhabited islands non other are habitable (clump of sand and bushes), you

Didn't say that either.

> Bottom line is that you are either a liar or distressingly incorrect and I
> don't have the time to discuss this with a person guilty of either.

The bottom line seems to be that you have reading and comprehension
difficulties as well as not having a clue what an atoll is.

There are 26 atolls in the Maldives. There is more than one island in most
of the atolls. Ari Atoll for example has well over 100, probably
more than 200.

Jason

Signature

http://www.scuba-addict.co.uk/ for Australian trip reports including
New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia

Dan Bracuk - 05 Aug 2005 02:08 GMT
"Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> pounded away at his
keyboard resulting in:
:It has always confused me somewhat that Wayne has avoided Indonesia and PNG.
:Do you have any idea why?

Because he expects most of his business to come from North America and
those are long arduous journeys?

It's why I haven't been to those places.

Dan Bracuk
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
Ross Garrett - 05 Aug 2005 02:23 GMT
> "Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> pounded away at his
> keyboard resulting in:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Because he expects most of his business to come from North America and
> those are long arduous journeys?

I don't think so. The record of boats in Indonesia and PNG is quite good. I
suspect he just didn't get there in time and would now have to try and enter
a mature market. I say this because he is going to put a boat in West Papua
at Raja Ampat...a place that as of yet isn't serviced from local but rather
from across the Molucca Sea. In essence I think he learned a lesson from not
jumping into PNG hard and early.

> It's why I haven't been to those places.

I understand, but I also understand that a boat in these locales is only
looking for 7 -8 hundred passengers per year, from across the globe. And
disposable income has grown exponentially over the last decade.
Dan Bracuk - 05 Aug 2005 02:26 GMT
"Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> pounded away at his
keyboard resulting in:
:I understand, but I also understand that a boat in these locales is only
:looking for 7 -8 hundred passengers per year, from across the globe. And
:disposable income has grown exponentially over the last decade.

It ain't necessarily the money that's most precious.  For some of us,
it's the leisure time.

Quiet Feesh.  

Dan Bracuk
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.
chilly - 05 Aug 2005 02:57 GMT
> "Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> pounded away at his
> keyboard resulting in:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> It ain't necessarily the money that's most precious.  For some of us,
> it's the leisure time.

I'll agree with you there, Dan.  My SE Asia dive trips are always in
conjunction with a much longer visit with family.  That makes the length of
the getting there and back, almost worth it.

I'm going to have one heck of a time convincing myself to make an early
return.  I haven't accumulated quite enough points to go First Class again
and having made the trip that way last time, I'm loath to get back in coach.
(snip)
Ross Garrett - 05 Aug 2005 17:39 GMT
> "Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> pounded away at his
> keyboard resulting in:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> It ain't necessarily the money that's most precious.  For some of us,
> it's the leisure time.

It isn't pertinent that some people may not have the time. What is important
is that a lot of people have the money, and from that group they are looking
for only a miniscule carve-out of customers with time to match the
disposable income.

The fact that the travel and hospitality industries suffer when the economy
is poor, yet grow when it is good, is a fair indicator that disposable
income rather than time is the chief arbiter in a high percentage of
people's vacation decisions.

Time is always a consideration, but that won't stifle the scuba-travel
industry as lack of leisure money most certainly will.
Reef Fish - 05 Aug 2005 17:56 GMT
> > "Ross Garrett" <frederickrossgarrett@hotmail.com> pounded away at his
> > keyboard resulting in:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> It isn't pertinent that some people may not have the time.

But it ain't impertinent to hear a Canadian use "ain't", and a
Denverite to say isn't pertinent".  :-)

> Time is always a consideration, but that won't stifle the scuba-travel
> industry as lack of leisure money most certainly will.

For the few rare times, I straddle the fence on this issue, but
leans toward Dan's position.

For scuba folks in the 'Merkas, money and time are BOTH constrints,
but time may be a bigger constraint than money, especially for
those (not in Dan's case) who can AFFORD only one (or two) week(s)
a year say, from their work.  In those cases, time IS the essence,
and money is only secondary in choosing a dive location.

-- Bob.
Ross Garrett - 05 Aug 2005 20:56 GMT
> But it ain't impertinent to hear a Canadian use "ain't", and a
> Denverite to say isn't pertinent".  :-)

...or a Reef Fish prognosticate when chilly will reply again!

"I predicted you would be here, 3 minutes before your post appeared :-)"
Reef Fish - 05 Aug 2005 21:14 GMT
> > But it ain't impertinent to hear a Canadian use "ain't", and a
> > Denverite to say isn't pertinent".  :-)
>
> ...or a Reef Fish prognosticate when chilly will reply again!
>
> "I predicted you would be here, 3 minutes before your post appeared :-)"

That's because chilly at least posted something about ONE divable
location she had been among the hundreds we discussed.

Unlike her usual lifeless twin Alan Street who had not dived
ANYWHERE, and had thick enough skin to re-appear with having
anything to say about SCUBA, when he was singing his tune only
two days ago:

AS>  Feesh, you really need to get a life.

I won't predict when Bob Crownfield will appear either.  :-)
Someone will have to say something really insulting about me
before Crownfield will exhume himself from the dead to proclaim:

*> You win the Laugh of the Day award.

That's Crownfield's entire LIFE right there.

Stick around.  You'll see a few of these lifeless critters of
rec.scuba.* yet.   Not many of them are left, but then stench
are still here.

-- Bob.
Don Ward - 03 Aug 2005 02:34 GMT
Dan Bracuk wrote, in part:

> Something else you may consider important is that, unless I am
> mistaken, the Explorer has shared heads.  The Wind Dancer has private
> heads and Aggressor has boat info on their website.

The Explorer has private heads as well.

http://www.explorerventures.com/tcexhtml/turksindex.html
 
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



©2009 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.