SCUBA-SE Archives

August 2000

SCUBA-SE@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mike Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SouthEast US Scuba Diving Travel list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:37:26 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (94 lines)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reef Fish" <[log in to unmask]>


> On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 18:48:49 -0400, Michael Doelle
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >Bob wrote:
> >
> >> [...] for any dive, under any circumstances, let alone a deep wreck (by
> >Florida
> >standards), under adverse conditions.  It all added to the poor
> >reflection on FLORIDA dive operations and DMs.<
>
> That's just a general statement about Florida wreck diving circa
> 1990.  It is DEEP by Florida standards in the sense that there were
> ONLY THREE wreck dives among the choices I had at the time (Duane,
> Bibbs, and Eagle), and the ONLY ONE I could have booked IN ADVANCE
> (prior to arriving Florida).  The shops I called couldn't promise
> diving any of the wrecks on any particular day until they know there
> were enough "bodies" to dive them.
>
> As it was, the shop that DID book us to dive the Eagle went out of
> business (but didn't bother to notify us) by the time we got there,
> and we ended up with Cyana Divers who happened to have enough
> "bodies" on that day.
>
> But my statement wasn't about wreck diving.  It was about POOR
> DIVE BREIFING by DM, especially given the high-current and poor vis
> condition on THAT wreck which WAS and IS considered "deep" by
> the dive operations.
>
> >110ft isn't "a deep wreck" by "Florida standards".
>
> And what is?  The Duane and Bibbs at 130?
>
> >Your statement just
> >underlines your limited experience with this area.
>
> There is no secret about my VERY limited experience with Florida
> diving, by my CHOICE, because I READ extensively about dive
> locations and sites, and Florida just doesn't cut it.  I gave it
> a try in the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys.  My experience
> convinced me there are better places to dive.  Pure and simple.
>
> I am NOT a wreck diver, again by my own CHOICE.  But if I were to
> look for GOOD wreck dives, I would go Truk (which would be worth
> the travelling distance) or Morehead City NC (which is much closer)
> long before I dive ANY of the wrecks in any city in Florida, judging
> by the magazine articles and newsgroups I've read about diving
> wrecks.
>
>
> >And there are plenty of wreck dives in the 150 to 300+ range here.
>
> Oh really?
>
> For recreational divers?  I didn't realize that Florida is that
> enlightened to take RECREATIONAL divers to over 150 fsw, let
> alone 300+ ft, wreck or no wreck.
>
> What and where ARE they?

While certainly not for recreational, in the sense of depth limits posed by
most certification agencies, there are many wrecks off of Florida's coasts
that offer wreck divers a world class diving experience.
Baja California 115'
Empire Mica  105'
Lubrafol 140'
Hydro Atlantic 172'
Ande 190'
Rhein Hamburg 250'
Cities Service Empire 290'

With the exception of the Empire Mica, most of the wrecks listed are off the
south east coast. The Mica of course is off the panhandle area, accessed
mainly out of Panama City. All of these wrecks are accessible from various
commercial charter operations. There are also quite a few wrecks in the
Pensacola area ranging in depths from about 40' down to the 300' range, also
serviced by commercial charter operations.

Mike


>
> Where and how does one book those dives?  I must claim ignorance
> in ALL my years of reading of recreational diving magazines that
> I don't recall reading any of those dives in Florida, not that the
> mags are shy about talking about GOOD wreck dives below 150 fsw.

The information is available and the charters are there to be had.

Mike

ATOM RSS1 RSS2