Noob questions re: Peacock

To open up another can of worms:

When I was in training I had an idea. You should be able to look at the line and tell where the usual exit was, but also where an emergency exit was. For example, if you were 300' in the main tunnel at Peacock, there could be a large arrow pointing to Peacock with 300 on it, and a much smaller arrow pointing to Pothole with 200 on it.

My instructor said, "Good try." But that would be far too complicated to get everyone to agree on procedures. For example, 1,000 feet in I would have a large 1000 arrow pointing to Peacock, and a small 400 arrow pointing to Olson. But some would add a third small 500 arrow pointing to Pothole. Now it really gets complicated.

His answer: leave things as they are, and study the Peacock map in your spare time. Then you'll always know where you are. Maybe that's why he's the instructor.

Russell

[Jim Wyatt]

leave things as they are, and study the Peacock map in your spare time. Then you'll always know where you are. Maybe that's why he's the instructor.

Russell

Heh--sort of like "Thats the way we have always done it, so why change?" But, that is not the way is was always done.

Sludge--> Surely you are kidding that he answered that way.

I am having dinner with a member of the line committe tonight, so I'll ask him.

[Kelly Jessop]

Hopefully someone from the line committee can answer that one...

Actually you want to ask the question of the Springs Cave Management Team-this is a group composed of DEP and cave diving officials. The rationale for no longer having line arrows pointing toward Pothole is because Pothole is intended for emergency egress only,and is marked that way with white line.

[jammer]

So does that mean we can enter in any of the other sinks Kelly? Such as Olsen or is it still just an Emergency exit also?

[Kelly Jessop]

So does that mean we can enter in any of the other sinks Kelly? Such as Olsen or is it still just an Emergency exit also?

Olsen is still emergency egress. This is conditional on approval by a biologist,if they should ever approve steps to the water for erosion control.

[Jim Wyatt]

Hopefully someone from the line committee can answer that one...

The rationale for no longer having line arrows pointing toward Pothole is because Pothole is intended for emergency egress only,and is marked that way with white line.

The point I am trying to make is that with standard line marking protocol we have back-to-back arrows in between exits to mark the midway point between these exits in most places here in North Florida.

This line marking protocol was designed so that divers may know in the event of an emergency where the nearest exit is. If a team passes back-to-back arrows and a couple of minutes later has a need for an emergency exit a trained team will know where the nearest exit is. Under the current line marking that same team will NOT know where the actual nearest exit is. I stop short of calling this lack of back-to-back markers irresponsible until I learn more of the reasoning for their absence.

Certainly we all know and understand that Pothole is not a normal entrance/exit point due to conservation reasons. (Even back in the days when it was on private property we never used it as an entrance or exit.) However the lack of back-to-back arrows on that line in between Peacock I and Pothole denies divers potentially lifesaving information as they are swimming down that line during an emergency.

The gapped line going up at Pothole with a single line arrow does mark the exit. But does not provide the team that is for instance 100 feet from it any information.

In order to properly mark the midway point between these two exits should there not be back-to-back arrows should be replaced mid way between Pothole and Peacock I

Last night at dinner with my friend on the line committee I was informed that the State of Florida officials have requested that the back-to-back arrows not be placed as they are trying to prevent divers from using Pothole as an exit point.

I am failing then to understand why then we have back-to-back arrows marking the midway point between Peacock I & Olsen if I use the same reasoning as to why there is not a set of arrows on the former. Olsen too is not an exit or an entrance.

Can someone help me understand the logic that I am clearly failing to understand.

[Kelly Jessop]

The point I am trying to make is that with standard line marking protocol .

I think one problem there is no standard line marking protocols. There is what we envision as what "textbook" line markings should be, but in reality there are unique markings in many systems in many places in North America. I think one of the goals of the SCMT is to standardize it all among the state parks with one set of protocols. PM me if you have further questions.

[Jim Wyatt]

PM me if you have further questions.

PM sent

[Jerry]

The main difference between Pothole and Olsen is that in order to exit via Pothole you have to jump to that line; Olsen, on the other hand, is configured such that it forces you to almost surface in the sink whether it is an emergency or you are just passing through. I have only done it once but I seem to recall Pothole being a fairly tight, silt ascent--not necessarily a good choice especially since better choices are so close.

Jerry

[Jason B.]

The main difference between Pothole and Olsen is that in order to exit via Pothole you have to jump to that line; Olsen, on the other hand, is configured such that it forces you to almost surface in the sink whether it is an emergency or you are just passing through. I have only done it once but I seem to recall Pothole being a fairly tight, silt ascent--not necessarily a good choice especially since better choices are so close.

Jerry

Thanks for the insight.
I can kinda see the logic in that.