 |
 | 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 / Scuba Locations / March 2006Oriskany Dive
The ship is not even sunk yet and I already have people lining up to dive on it. I sense another rec.scuba dive in the making. If it's going to happen, I might as well start keeping track of it unless there's someone else interested in taking the lead. Rather than look back to try and figure out who has expressed interest, I'll simply offer the opportunity to anyone interested to do so now. I captured only three names as they went by: hh, Magilla and Chuck, a friend from another forum. If I missed your name, please accept my apology and send it again. If you do not use a real name and e-mail address in rec.scuba, please send a private message to me that includes both as well as something to remind me to keep your information confidential. This is an expression of interest, not a commitment to the trip. It will keep you in the loop until the ship is available for diving and more detailed plans are being made. Lee > The ship is not even sunk yet and I already have people lining up to dive > on it. I sense another rec.scuba dive in the making. If it's going to > happen, I might as well start keeping track of it unless there's someone > else interested in taking the lead. Definitely don't want the lead, and would probably opt out of that one done as an open group. I figure to do that one with just some trusted friends. Sorry if I'm sounding "elitist", but that's gonna be recreational limits at the deck, definite tech dive to the sand, if sunk as planned. Curtis "Magilla" wrote: > > The ship is not even sunk yet and I already have people lining up to dive > > on it. I sense another rec.scuba dive in the making. If it's going to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Definitely don't want the lead, and would probably opt out of that one > done as an open group. Curtis, don't worry about the diving part. The social topside stuff is just as important as the actual dive itself. > I figure to do that one with just some trusted friends. But of course. > Sorry if I'm sounding "elitist", but that's gonna be recreational limits > at the deck, definite tech dive to the sand, if sunk as planned. Its got to get down first. Then whoever's available whenever to go can decide what dive plan they're comfortable with. While you're off to the depths, there's sure to be those who are happy with the main deck and/or conning tower (~60ft minimum). -hh > Curtis, don't worry about the diving part. The social topside stuff is > just as important as the actual dive itself. As I am well aware. Still, I would feel compelled by the temptations presented to be selective on a "social" like this. >> I figure to do that one with just some trusted friends. > > But of course. And of course, some here. >> Sorry if I'm sounding "elitist", but that's gonna be recreational >> limits >> at the deck, definite tech dive to the sand, if sunk as planned. > > Its got to get down first. Ain't that the truth. > Then whoever's available whenever to go can > decide what dive plan they're comfortable with. While you're off to > the depths, there's sure to be those who are happy with the main deck > and/or conning tower (~60ft minimum). That would be the ideal thing, unfortunately, reality differs sometimes. This one I will only do with a small group by invitation, respectfully decline otherwise. Curtis > That would be the ideal thing, unfortunately, reality differs sometimes. > > This one I will only do with a small group by invitation, respectfully > decline otherwise. I don't see how the Oriskany differs from any "bottomless" wall dive, that thousands of PADI OW divers do daily around the world without any problems. There may be a few, like Bob, who bounce to the depths, but most of us are happy with recreational depths. I rarely break 115' or 120' on wall dives even though there's obviously hundreds of feet of good stuff to see below me, and most people I dive with are happy staying shallower than that. > I don't see how the Oriskany differs from any "bottomless" wall dive, that > thousands of PADI OW divers do daily around the world without any problems. > There may be a few, like Bob, who bounce to the depths, but most of us are > happy with recreational depths. I rarely break 115' or 120' on wall dives > even though there's obviously hundreds of feet of good stuff to see below > me, and most people I dive with are happy staying shallower than that. Theoretically, it's a bit different... With a typical wall dive, it's just a repeat of what you have seen in the shallower portions of the wall, except with possible less life and lack of color (unless you have a light with you)... For a wreck, there is definitely something different down there -- a completely different part of the ship... The potential for problems is probably related to the fact that to see the engineering spaces, you're going to have to go deep in addition to it being a penetration dive... To see the shafts, you're going to Do they plan to open up the entire ship for diving or have they welded some of the hatches shut? Having been stationed aboard an aircraft carrier, I'm well aware of the fact that it can take a bit of time to travel from various compartments that are below the waterline to hatchways that are open in the hangar deck or such... I have to wonder how much they opened her up in preparation for the sinking... Normally, the mess deck (i.e. 2nd Deck) is open the full length of the ship, but lower decks tend not to have passageways that run the length of the ship... If they did not open up the hull anywhere, I suspect that access to the machinery rooms will need to be accomplished via entrance at one of the aircraft elevators, down a hatch to the 2nd Deck, along the passageways until encountering the appropriate hatch and ladderway that might lead further down to the desired compartment... One thing to note is that adjacent compartments that were normally below the waterline do not always have hatches between them... In many cases to go to an adjacent compartment, you are required to go up a deck, across the ship, and down a deck... A favorite phrase issued to new sailors aboard ship is, "you can't get there from here"... "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :I don't see how the Oriskany differs from any "bottomless" wall dive, that :thousands of PADI OW divers do daily around the world without any problems. :There may be a few, like Bob, who bounce to the depths, but most of us are :happy with recreational depths. I rarely break 115' or 120' on wall dives :even though there's obviously hundreds of feet of good stuff to see below :me, and most people I dive with are happy staying shallower than that. I need a reason to go deeper than 60 or 70 ft. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. >"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> pounded away at his keyboard >resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I need a reason to go deeper than 60 or 70 ft. How about a wall that starts at 60 ft? >Dan Bracuk >If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > >----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- >http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups >----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----  Signaturedillon Could have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the now Dillon Pyron <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :How about a wall that starts at 60 ft? It would have to start at 71 ft for me to go deeper than 60 or 70 ft or so. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > I need a reason to go deeper than 60 or 70 ft. Don't we all, but some need less reason than others. What is probably more important is how and where you draw the line even if you have a reason to go deeper. Lee >> I need a reason to go deeper than 60 or 70 ft. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Lee According to a picture I once took, 111 ft in the clear blue Pacific seems to be one such limit. The picture is of my computer displaying 111. I have no idea why I took it, I tell people "the nitrogen told me to take it". Signaturedillon Could have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the now > According to a picture I once took, 111 ft in the clear blue Pacific > seems to be one such limit. > The picture is of my computer displaying 111. I have no idea why I > took it, I tell people "the nitrogen told me to take it". Sounds likely. > According to a picture I once took, 111 ft in the clear blue Pacific > seems to be one such limit. > > The picture is of my computer displaying 111. I have no idea why I > took it, I tell people "the nitrogen told me to take it". "Helium is your friend" Curtis > "Helium is your friend" Oriskany... 215 ft, 25 minutes on bottom on air... V-Planner 3.72 by R. Hemingway, VPM code by Erik C. Baker. Decompression model: VPM - B DIVE PLAN Surface interval = 5 day 0 hr 0 min. Elevation = 0ft Conservatism = + 2 Dec to 200ft (4) Air 50ft/min descent. Dec to 215ft (4) Air 60ft/min descent. Level 215ft 20:45 (25) Air 1.58 ppO2, 215ft ead Asc to 130ft (27) Air -30ft/min ascent. Stop at 130ft 0:10 (28) Air 1.04 ppO2, 130ft ead Stop at 120ft 1:00 (29) Air 0.97 ppO2, 120ft ead Stop at 110ft 2:00 (31) Air 0.91 ppO2, 110ft ead Stop at 100ft 2:00 (33) Air 0.85 ppO2, 100ft ead Stop at 90ft 3:00 (36) Air 0.78 ppO2, 90ft ead Stop at 80ft 3:00 (39) Air 0.72 ppO2, 80ft ead Stop at 70ft 4:00 (43) Air 0.65 ppO2, 70ft ead Stop at 60ft 5:00 (48) Air 0.59 ppO2, 60ft ead Stop at 50ft 8:00 (56) Air 0.53 ppO2, 50ft ead Stop at 40ft 9:00 (65) Air 0.46 ppO2, 40ft ead Stop at 30ft 14:00 (79) Air 0.40 ppO2, 30ft ead Stop at 20ft 22:00 (101) Air 0.34 ppO2, 20ft ead Stop at 10ft 37:00 (138) Air 0.27 ppO2, 10ft ead Surface (138) Air -30ft/min ascent. Off gassing starts at 154.5ft OTU's this dive: 59 CNS Total: 35.9% 266.7 cu ft Air 266.7 cu ft TOTAL It's possible... Serious narc potential though... > It's possible... Serious narc potential though... And as archaic as a race car without a five point seat belt, fire suit & helmet. This is not even worth discussing. Curtis > And as archaic as a race car without a five point seat belt, fire suit & > helmet. > > This is not even worth discussing. Awh, gee, you're no fun... <snicker> >> And as archaic as a race car without a five point seat belt, fire suit & >> helmet. >> >> This is not even worth discussing. > >Awh, gee, you're no fun... <snicker> So you're the guy in the back of the church giggling during the funeral. Signaturedillon Could have been is in the past Could be is in the future There is only the now > So you're the guy in the back of the church giggling during the > funeral. Perhaps clapping, depending upon who is going to be planted... >> This is not even worth discussing. > > Awh, gee, you're no fun... <snicker> "shrug" > "shrug" Damn, you probably don't even want to play the who-can-get-most-narced game... I think Dillon knows how to play it... > Curtis, don't worry about the diving part. The social topside stuff is > just as important as the actual dive itself. Even more important... Hell, we need someone up there who can ensure that the boat doesn't leave without us... Otherwise, that's a fuckin' long swim back to shore... |
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
|
©2008 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.