Question GUE and Wreck Diving

[Imla]

All of my T1, T2, CCR2 and Documentation Diver classes revolved around wrecks.
From what I can see, if there are wrecks reasonably close by, GUE instructors prefer to do experience dives on technical classes on wrecks. So while GUE doesn't have a "wreckdiving class" specifically, wrecks are an integral part of most technical classes, and diving wrecks will be taught whilst diving them.

 

[KevinNM]

Yes, but there is no standards for doing that from GUE. Some instructors maybe doing it as "an add on" based on their experience but no curriculum or any material from GUE on the subject. No GUE instructor I have read about or visited their website talks about wreck diving at all (and I have visit many of them).

I heard Krill Egorov talking about diving on the Mars during the exploration and excavation.

Discovery of Swedish wreck Mars

A group of divers, including Richard Lundgren and Jarrod Jablonski, have found what appears to be the Swedish war fleet flagship Mars, which sank in 1564 just north of Öland. The ship is built of solid oak and lies 75 meters deep. Mars was one of the largest ships of its time, and the largest in...

www.gue.com

 

[rjack321]

Seems their entire existence spawned from overhead environment exploration diving so seems like a good course for them to offer in the future.

The general perspective is if you want overhead training take a cave course. Wrecks, even artificial/prepped ships are messy and it's hard both supervise students and being deeper it's also difficult to provide decent bottom times to practice line skills. GUE has been around for decades yet no wreck course for these reasons (and others).

 

[ChrisMBC]

The general perspective is if you want overhead training take a cave course. Wrecks, even artificial/prepped ships are messy and it's hard both supervise students and being deeper it's also difficult to provide decent bottom times to practice line skills. GUE has been around for decades yet no wreck course for these reasons (and others).

I heard a very similar perspective from a GUE instructor addressing this topic recently. The suggestion was that many of the core technical skills for wreck penetration (line running, no-viz work, etc) are similar to cave, but logistically much harder to teach outside of the cave environment (or to do so safely).

This does suck for those of us that will have to travel a ways to find a GUE cave class, but I do see the logic. For most GUE communities, I can see that it's easier to (for argument's sake) get 10 hours of training time underwater in overhead environments by taking a cave class.

 

[lostsheep]

I'm gonna take the unpopular stance and say that wrecks are not caves and vice versa. While there are clearly some similarities they are different environments with different problems requiring different solutions.

GUE seems to at least partially agree with my sentiment; what does the last letter in GUE EDGE stand for again?

 

[DiveTucson]

I'm gonna take the unpopular stance and say that wrecks are not caves and vice versa. While there are clearly some similarities they are different environments with different problems requiring different solutions.

GUE seems to at least partially agree with my sentiment; what does the last letter in GUE EDGE stand for again?

Depends on which “E” you want to use first ;-)

 

[Kay Dee]

I'm gonna take the unpopular stance and say that wrecks are not caves and vice versa. While there are clearly some similarities they are different environments with different problems requiring different solutions.

Amen to that! The old military adage of "train how you fight" is very apt here. While some skills crosover from cave, others dont even exist.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Just saw this thread. My thinking on the topic has been that if GUE were to teach wreck, it would be serious penetration stuff, and there are fewer of those around than there are caves. What would be the demand for such a course worldwide? Lower demand than for cave training, I suspect. In another 20 years maybe there will be only sanitized wrecks, and they are expensive to create. Caves, in contrast, will presumably be around for a long time.

 

[SpeedyJ]

As a GUE diver the expectation is that you’re a thinking diver, not “do I have a card that says x.”

As a thinking diver I’d say my experience is x, and y, the dive I’m looking to do will also require z.

To get z, I’ll call up an instructor with experience in that realm. We’ll come up with a plan that augments the training I’ve received so that I’m able to get to z. That might be an hour on the phone, or a few days diving with the instructor working on new skills, and *gasp* we might even integrate course materials from another agency while relating it back to GUE’s SOPs.

In North America when it comes to wrecks, I’d likely call Kelvin Davidson. He has a wealth of experience from his time running the Truk Lagoon Dive Center, and diving wrecks around the world.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Just saw this thread. My thinking on the topic has been that if GUE were to teach wreck, it would be serious penetration stuff, and there are fewer of those around than there are caves. What would be the demand for such a course worldwide? Lower demand than for cave training, I suspect. In another 20 years maybe there will be only sanitized wrecks, and they are expensive to create. Caves, in contrast, will presumably be around for a long time.

While no wreck lasts forever (thinking of Truk and other sites in the Pacific from WW2), the Moskva will be around longer than 20 years! Exact Location Of Flagship Missile Cruiser " Moskva" Sinking Became Known