Wreck Penetrations?
- Thread starter ermaclob
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
DogDiver
Contributor
I did 36 years of Great Lakes Wreck diving. I drove to Florida to get cave certified so I could be a safer wreck diver. Wrecks are just big steel caves.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DevonDiver
N/A
Go ask a bunch of cavers if they'd take you inside on the basis of a wreck-diving cert. There's your answer....
---------- Post added June 29th, 2014 at 10:54 PM ----------
I agree and disagree.
Many entry-level wreck courses are a complete and utter waste of time. I'd judge them nearly criminally negligent, in that they qualify the diver to "dive in the overhead environment, within the light zone".... because, frankly, they don't....
They simply DO NOT equate to equivalent cavern/cave level courses..... AND THEY SHOULD.
That said, there are some magnificent entry-level wreck courses available. I teach the ANDI Wreck course...and it's virtually identical to the ANDI Cavern courses. 1 OW skills practice dive (lost line, lost buddy, guideline deployment/retrieval, signals, touch-contact etc etc), then further practice on 3x overhead environment dives (light zone).
Likewise, progressing beyond the entry-level wreck, the similarity between courses/syllabus/protocols/skills in cave & wreck becomes increasingly identical.
Between cave and wreck... training skills/protocols maybe near-identical...but their application in a specific environment IS DIFFERENT. It's wrong to think that a caver is fully educated to enter a wreck, or vice-versa.
I wrote an article covering the issue of effective wreck training, in comparison with cave, in depth: The Anatomy of an Effective Wreck Diving Course
Wreck divers will practice these also.
I just don't count someone wielding a 'PADI Wreck Diver' c-card as a 'Wreck Diver'. It's a novelty course... that completely fails to achieve it's stated goals.
---------- Post added June 29th, 2014 at 10:54 PM ----------
I agree and disagree.
Many entry-level wreck courses are a complete and utter waste of time. I'd judge them nearly criminally negligent, in that they qualify the diver to "dive in the overhead environment, within the light zone".... because, frankly, they don't....
They simply DO NOT equate to equivalent cavern/cave level courses..... AND THEY SHOULD.
That said, there are some magnificent entry-level wreck courses available. I teach the ANDI Wreck course...and it's virtually identical to the ANDI Cavern courses. 1 OW skills practice dive (lost line, lost buddy, guideline deployment/retrieval, signals, touch-contact etc etc), then further practice on 3x overhead environment dives (light zone).
Likewise, progressing beyond the entry-level wreck, the similarity between courses/syllabus/protocols/skills in cave & wreck becomes increasingly identical.
Between cave and wreck... training skills/protocols maybe near-identical...but their application in a specific environment IS DIFFERENT. It's wrong to think that a caver is fully educated to enter a wreck, or vice-versa.
I wrote an article covering the issue of effective wreck training, in comparison with cave, in depth: The Anatomy of an Effective Wreck Diving Course
Wreck divers will practice these also.
I just don't count someone wielding a 'PADI Wreck Diver' c-card as a 'Wreck Diver'. It's a novelty course... that completely fails to achieve it's stated goals.
I think most of the basic and core skills are similar.
Of course there will be differences, already addressed by others, but aren't there also differences between caves? And man-made structures, risk of collapse, entanglement hazard from cables, dangerous materials, etc also exist in mines where cave divers dive and are trained often in several parts of the world.
Then there is the different environment. Wrecks are often in the sea and there are procedures that may not be directly connected to wreck diving in terms of what's needed to be inside a wreck, but are important (tides, decompression procedures, shot line use, etc). They may or may be known to cave divers depending on their experience (what kind of ocean dives have they done before?).
I think these can be learned by going with someone experienced in wreck diving and knowledgeable of the site and procedures in use in that particular place. Although it may be worse if a cave diver has only been to inland sites. Then it's a huge step!
And one thing I think it's important, is that people are addressing some risks as if a cave diver would go straight to diving a difficult and dangerous wreck. I don't think they'd even go to an unknown cave, possibly with different conditions than those they were used to and go on an expedition! They'd talk to other divers, look at maps, plan, start off slowly and gradually. So why not do the same on a wreck, giving them the opportunity to get to know that environment and adapt?
I would not have a problem with someone with an Advanced Wreck cert going into a cave. Again, with local guidance and incremental experience. Although there may be a problem here, there is less uniformity in wreck training than in cave. For cave, we know fairly well what the contents and limits of the different levels are and even different agencies have similar standards. For wreck that can be different.
Of course there will be differences, already addressed by others, but aren't there also differences between caves? And man-made structures, risk of collapse, entanglement hazard from cables, dangerous materials, etc also exist in mines where cave divers dive and are trained often in several parts of the world.
Then there is the different environment. Wrecks are often in the sea and there are procedures that may not be directly connected to wreck diving in terms of what's needed to be inside a wreck, but are important (tides, decompression procedures, shot line use, etc). They may or may be known to cave divers depending on their experience (what kind of ocean dives have they done before?).
I think these can be learned by going with someone experienced in wreck diving and knowledgeable of the site and procedures in use in that particular place. Although it may be worse if a cave diver has only been to inland sites. Then it's a huge step!
And one thing I think it's important, is that people are addressing some risks as if a cave diver would go straight to diving a difficult and dangerous wreck. I don't think they'd even go to an unknown cave, possibly with different conditions than those they were used to and go on an expedition! They'd talk to other divers, look at maps, plan, start off slowly and gradually. So why not do the same on a wreck, giving them the opportunity to get to know that environment and adapt?
I would not have a problem with someone with an Advanced Wreck cert going into a cave. Again, with local guidance and incremental experience. Although there may be a problem here, there is less uniformity in wreck training than in cave. For cave, we know fairly well what the contents and limits of the different levels are and even different agencies have similar standards. For wreck that can be different.
DevonDiver
N/A
This is something I'd be keen to hear others' opinions on; especially the cavers.
I've always perceived a "no-no"... which seemed quite hypocritical, considering many cavers seem to think they can take their skills into wrecks with no problems.
For me, a technical-wreck instructor, I wouldn't go into caves without an appropriate cave qualification. There may only be small differences, but (as we know) it can be the small things that catch you out.
I've read literally hundreds of cave diving manuals, articles and other publications. I dive with qualified cavers all the time (on/in wrecks) and I was qualified as a technical wreck instructor by an I.T. who also teaches cave at the highest levels.
I'm also qualified in Advanced Sidemount - which has prerequisites of either Full Cave or Technical Wreck. So, in some sense, I'm "above" full cave.... but....
I'd still do full cave etc first before entering a cave system... the cost of the training, when balanced against my life, works out quite economical.
And you're an instructor, so of course you have to give such an answer.
But see, you mentioned full cave. It's what I said about people thinking that a diver migrating to the other discipline would straight away do dives at the highest level, which I don't think they should and also think they wouldn't. Would you consider doing a cave dive at intro level? (Maybe again your answer is restricted by you being an instructor. And I wonder if now this is going against SB policy related to cave diving without training...).
Wreck diving ≠ Cave diving.
Seek the appropriate training for the type of diving you want to do.
Seek the appropriate training for the type of diving you want to do.
DevonDiver
N/A
Specifically for me (I don't know other agency/instructor policies), I was told that my other qualifications merited skipping cavern/intro-to-cave and going directly to full cave if/when I sought that training, from that instructor.
I just wish there were some decent caves in my area... I'd have done it long ago. But I got wrecks...lots of nice wrecks
Sometimes we (instructors) do actually practice what we preach.
Big boys rules, demand big boys decisions.
Besides, I'm never averse to getting my butt kicked occasionally. I'm normally the butt-kicker. It safe-guards against complacency. It's also nice to revert to student mode once in a while, let some other poor schmuck carry the can, whilst I am free to make the mistakes
My comment was because I didn't know about that. But it makes sense. Now wouldn't something similar be possible the other way round? For a cave trained diver to be able to get a shorter wreck course, focusing more on the differences between environments and not needing the initial similar training on trim, propulsion techniques, reel work, lost line, no viz. etc exercises?
Sometimes we (instructors) do actually practice what we preach.
Big boys rules, demand big boys decisions.
Besides, I'm never averse to getting my butt kicked occasionally. I'm normally the butt-kicker. It safe-guards against complacency. It's also nice to revert to student mode once in a while, let some other poor schmuck carry the can, whilst I am free to make the mistakes
There is always someone who knows more and from whom we can learn. I think most people would do more training if it was accessible (both financial and logistically).
But as things are and even more after you said your qualifications would allow you to skip cavern and intro, wouldn't you do an intro level cave dive?
To the best of my knowledge you can't "skip" any cave courses as each course is a prerequisite to the following course. That doesn't mean of course someone won't pencil whip it.
Advanced Wreck is a single non-progressive course.
The two may cover similar subjects however AW course is not in any way a substitute for the cave training progression.
Advanced Wreck is a single non-progressive course.
The two may cover similar subjects however AW course is not in any way a substitute for the cave training progression.
Similar threads
