Wreck penetration and queuing

[boulderjohn]

I don't think any instructors in this thread are advocating this position. The fact that people ignore or forget their training doesn't imply that someone is actually teaching this. Stop connecting dots!



If I recall, and I don't have my books in front of me, that both PADI and SSI say you should dive within your experience and training.

Some people seem obsessed with thinking in the extreme. Yes, all recreational training agencies recommend diving within your experience and training. As I mentioned earlier, some people take that notion to a ridiculous extreme and do not believe the diver should be allowed to make any sort of judgment about the degree to which an approaching dive is within those limits. If you only dived to 37 feet on your training dives, does that mean another course is required before you go all the way to 38 feet? Some apparently think so. Me, I think the diver should be able to make that decision.

PADI specifically in its OW course recommends that before diving in conditions different from your experience that you should do a local orientation dive. Before I visited Seattle a few years ago, I had never dived in water colder than 55° F, and I had never dived in that area, where tides create a variety of experiences at different dive sites. I therefore contacted some very experienced divers in that area, and their knowledge of the local tidal issues helped us plan dive sites. I was pretty sure I was going to be OK with the colder water temperatures because I brought my thickest underwear, which I had almost never even tried on before. It turned out to be a mistake---I did not need anything that warm. I was sweating after a one hour night dive. My decision was wrong, but I made it knowing that either way the worst case scenario was something that was merely a matter of personal comfort and not safety. I put that information in my knowledge bank for the next time I dive water in the high 40s. I believe what I did was exactly what PADI had in mind when it tells divers to get a local orientation. I do not believe that PADI meant I had to take (and pay for) a formal class in diving those lower temperatures and those specific tidal conditions before I got in the water.

 

[EFX]

As I mentioned earlier, some people take that notion to a ridiculous extreme and do not believe the diver should be allowed to make any sort of judgment about the degree to which an approaching dive is within those limits.

Judgment. That's the problem isn't it? You demonstrate good judgment because you have the training and experience. But, what of the newly OW diver who sees instructors not wearing their snorkels during non-instructional dives? Or, the dive charter who allows all divers to dive deeper than 60 feet without checking certs (for training) or log books (for experience). Even if judgment gets clouded over because of these apparent infraction of the rules we can fall back on personal responsibility. Our OW diver can tell the DM that he is not going below 60 feet because he is not trained to do so. For the snorkel issue we can apply common sense. Why we do or don't do things in apparent contrast to our training is just as important as the what we do.

 

[nimoh]

But, what of the newly OW diver who sees instructors not wearing their snorkels during non-instructional dives?

students are free to discard there snorkel after class if they wish...it's their choice.

Or, the dive charter who allows all divers to dive deeper than 60 feet without checking certs (for training) or log books (for experience)

It's not up to the dive charter to police this (although some do anyway), OW students are certified to dive to 130'. Some agencies make recommendations that students stay above 60' until they get more comfortable or take AOW. If previously an OW student only dove to 55', going to 70' may or may not be a big deal, depending on the individual.

 

[EFX]

I'm not suggesting that charter's police anything. I was pointing out as others have said that it appears that training limits are being broken and may give unthinking divers an excuse to break them. This is why "why" becomes important. If you don't have the experience or the judgment to decide one way or another then fall back on your training. That is taking personal responsibility. As far as the depth limit goes who cares what the agencies say or require -- it is the charter's rules that command the day.

 

[boulderjohn]

Judgment. That's the problem isn't it? You demonstrate good judgment because you have the training and experience. But, what of the newly OW diver who sees instructors not wearing their snorkels during non-instructional dives? Or, the dive charter who allows all divers to dive deeper than 60 feet without checking certs (for training) or log books (for experience). Even if judgment gets clouded over because of these apparent infraction of the rules we can fall back on personal responsibility. Our OW diver can tell the DM that he is not going below 60 feet because he is not trained to do so. For the snorkel issue we can apply common sense. Why we do or don't do things in apparent contrast to our training is just as important as the what we do.

Let's take the snorkel issue as an example. It is required during instruction. I tell students that it is required during instruction, but it is their decision as to whether or not they use it after certification. I give them the pros. I give them the cons. I tell them what my personal practice is. Once they are divers, it is their decision.

That is true of a lot of things in scuba, and I believe my role as a scuba instructor is to help them make mature and informed decisions. I make decision making a key part of my classes.

Back to the subject of this thread. With all the highly popular wreck diving sites in this world, with thousands and thousands of divers going to those sites with the express purpose of going into those wrecks, and with all the highly popular dive sites with swim throughs in this world, with thousands and thousands of divers going to those sites with the express purpose of going into those swim throughs, I think they might be able to use some help making decisions. The "just say no!" philosophy is obviously not very effective, since so very many are ignoring it.

In fact, "just say no!" is both counterproductive and dangerous. Divers who learns on their own that they can go into these basic, simple overheads with impunity will naturally assume the "just say no!" rule is a crock that can be ignored, leaving them no guidance related to more complex dives. "If I can visit the Tracy wreck in Fort Lauderdale safely what about the Captain Dan? How about the Spiegel Grove? If the rule against the first one is a crock, I should be able to do the others, right?"

It seems to me that a course that explains the difference between the highly safe Tracy and the highly unsafe Spiegel Grove (for the untrained diver) would have a lot more value than simply maintaining the myth that you cannot navigate the simplest of overheads without technical training. I will give you an example from a very recent incident. Two divers with no technical training but lots of simple overhead experience decided to do a penetration dive of the Spiegel Grove. They had apparently been diving lesser wrecks with impunity, and they decided to up the ante. The used a reel for a guideline, but they had no formal training in using it, and they did not have an appropriate amount of gas. That was a bad decision, and one of them died. They simply did not have the training and equipment needed to do that penetration safely. But they also had no training telling them the difference between a wreck like the Tracy and a wreck like the Spiegel Grove. Perhaps if they had taken a course that explains the reasons a wreck with the characteristics of the Spiegel Grove demands technical training while a wreck like the Tracy does not, they would have made a different decision, and they would both be alive today.

 

[tursiops]

Let's take the snorkel issue as an example. It is required during instruction.

The snorkel is an interesting example. The PADI standards call it required equipment to HAVE, but nowhere do the standards say it must be WORN. Sometimes that is clear from the context, as in the OW pool work where you do a snorkel-regulator exchange, but sometimes the snorkel is explicitly disallowed (Cavern) or optional (Ice) or should be a folding snorkel or otherwise carried in a pocket (dive 4 of Wreck, under the penetration option). So I teach with the snorkel in OW, but carry the snorkel in my pocket in other classes (and discuss that with the students). I HAVE it if needed, but don't usually wear it.


Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk

 

[boulderjohn]

The snorkel is an interesting example. The PADI standards call it required equipment to HAVE, but nowhere do the standards say it must be WORN. Sometimes that is clear from the context, as in the OW pool work where you do a snorkel-regulator exchange, but sometimes the snorkel is explicitly disallowed (Cavern) or optional (Ice) or should be a folding snorkel or otherwise carried in a pocket (dive 4 of Wreck, under the penetration option). So I teach with the snorkel in OW, but carry the snorkel in my pocket in other classes (and discuss that with the students). I HAVE it if needed, but don't usually wear it.

I do exactly the same. I have a flexible (and cheap) snorkel that folds up nicely.

 

[EFX]

But they also had no training telling them the difference between a wreck like the Tracy and a wreck like the Spiegel Grove. Perhaps if they had taken a course that explains the reasons a wreck with the characteristics of the Spiegel Grove demands technical training while a wreck like the Tracy does not, they would have made a different decision, and they would both be alive today.

Perhaps. A little knowledge goes a long way. I have to assume that because they're running a line they had the wreck specialty. Part of that training says you penetrate only within the light cone and up to 130 linear feet surface to end point. I have to assume also that the Spiegel contains narrow passageways and/or chambers that are beyond the light cone. So, they probably didn't dive within their training.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

It's not up to the dive charter to police this (although some do anyway), OW students are certified to dive to 130'. Some agencies make recommendations that students stay above 60' until they get more comfortable or take AOW. If previously an OW student only dove to 55', going to 70' may or may not be a big deal, depending on the individual.

... and the conditions. I guarantee you going to 70 feet in a place where there's a major plankton bloom or surge or heavy current isn't the same as going to 70 feet on a typical reef in Bonaire. That's where "judgement" comes in ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[NAM001]

I think the main crux of this thread and what devides the sides is the aspect of OW traiing being good to 60 or 130'. The line seams pretty clear that instructors and those who derive financial gain from diving call it 130' and those who do not call it 60'. I believe there is one agency or so that does train to dive the full recreational depth range. Certainly not PADI or any agency that has AOW and DEEP in thier training sales chest. It has been acknoledged for ages that to train to dive the full recreational range would take too long. The anser was to break the training into segments of duration tht most students could commit to. Staged traing, s staged ability's. When a course sys that upon completion that you will be able to safely execute a dive to 60'/cesa depth, they are saying that you have a training limitation of 60'. Not that there is a training session limit but a diving limit based on the training you have completed. This clearly implies you lack the training to do dives deeper than the stated limits of the instruction. When my other half fininshed her OW class they told her 60 among other things'. And that to dive deeper required training (not included in the OW class) and mastering of affitional skills because things like CESA is not an option at depths below 60'. Any notion that OW is good for 130 serves to say tha AOW and DEEP are irrelivant training expences and are not needed.

I do agree that if charters enforced training level requirements, most of thier business would go to competators who will turn thier heads for a buck.


As far as deliniating between pass throughs being treated the same as entering the bowels of a ship. Those who take the extreem positions will say no way under any circumstances. That is agenda talking and not common sence. In regards to doing swimthroughs on wrecks that have good vis and no entanglements, or shwiminmg donw the side of a ship with an overhang above sould require no more than a personal evaluation of abilities by each diver as to whether to do or not to do. The guidance on how to make those decisions in the most basic classes should be done, because it is valuable when encountering those GRAY area dive decisions.

students are free to discard there snorkel after class if they wish...it's their choice.



It's not up to the dive charter to police this (although some do anyway), OW students are certified to dive to 130'. Some agencies make recommendations that students stay above 60' until they get more comfortable or take AOW. If previously an OW student only dove to 55', going to 70' may or may not be a big deal, depending on the individual.