Rudi Herbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,433
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I've reached 600 ft three times, took 275 lbs of gear and deco times in excess of 10 hours for 2 minutes of bottom time. Proud accomplishment? Nah, just glad to have survived it. I was in the best shape of my life and those were the most excruciatingly stressful dives of my life. Could I have operated a camera properly, focus, compose, shoot? No way.
There is a certain depth cut-off where using divers as operators is a proposition whose risks and cons far exceed the undeniable, but minimal advantages. Depending on conditions, I consider that cut-off to be about 200 ft, many a time shallower, some times under excellent conditions certainly deeper, but that's about where things become impractical and potentially dangerous. So yes, an ROV is the way to go, especially if one is exploring and looking around for things that may take a long while to reveal themselves. If you don't have to battle currents and can operate from a fixed land position, then a cheaper/smaller ROV might do the job, but these things are not all that cheap and usually require skilled operators to get the best from them.
FWIW
There is a certain depth cut-off where using divers as operators is a proposition whose risks and cons far exceed the undeniable, but minimal advantages. Depending on conditions, I consider that cut-off to be about 200 ft, many a time shallower, some times under excellent conditions certainly deeper, but that's about where things become impractical and potentially dangerous. So yes, an ROV is the way to go, especially if one is exploring and looking around for things that may take a long while to reveal themselves. If you don't have to battle currents and can operate from a fixed land position, then a cheaper/smaller ROV might do the job, but these things are not all that cheap and usually require skilled operators to get the best from them.
FWIW
