Silt Out - Wreck Danger! A graphic video demonstration.

[DevonDiver]

Silt Out - Wreck Danger!

This video, filmed by myself in Subic Bay, graphically shows the danger of silt out to wreck divers conducting penetration dives.

What looks like a nice benign compartment, with plenty of light and an obvious exit (well within recreational wreck diving limits) turns into a potential death trap within seconds of the silt being disturbed. All divers who consider wreck penetration should be fully aware of the reality of silt-outs.

If your wreck course didn't teach extensive and trust-worthy guideline procedures... along with limited/zero visibility familiarization and the practice of core emergency skills in those conditions... then you need to question how well you were trained to dive inside wrecks...

Enjoy the video... it's shocking and eye-opening!

[vimeo]53944396[/vimeo]

The Scubaboard embed is a small size - to see the video at a larger size, visit my blog: Silt Out - Wreck Danger!

 

[decompression]

Thanks, Andy.

 

[HowardE]

Single tank wreck penetrations? In shorties? Really?

 

[DevonDiver]

Single tank wreck penetrations? In shorties? Really?

On a PADI Wreck Course, yes... within PADI recommended limits for wreck penetration (light zone/no restrictions/130' linear from surface). The penetration shown in the video is about 4m into an empty cabin 6x4m, with door exits at each side and 6 portholes near the 'roof'. Ooodles of ambient light, no entanglements, no restrictions and only 14m deep.

I'd love for PADI to make redundancy mandatory for deep/wreck recreational dives, but they won't/haven't. Many of the wreck courses I teach are now in conjunction with sidemount (for those serious to develop penetration skills), but there's always going to be single-tank divers who want to train for wrecks.

The video shows just one training experience they are given which helps educate them about the necessity for exemplary core skills, guideline technique...and the benefits of redundancy. Most of my recreational wreck graduates leave the course with a profound respect for penetration - knowing precisely what they need to improve, develop and equip with before venturing back inside again. For a 4-dive 'intro' course (which is all the PADI Wreck Diver course is...) I'd call that effective training.

More dives/courses are available for those who feel sufficiently prepared and competent to continue with wreck penetration skills training.

I'm the one in a rash guard and x-shorts (not a shorty)... I also do technical wreck (4+ tank sidemount/backmount) in the same exposure protection. Water temp is 32 Celsius Will wear a full suit (3mm) when I know I'm going to be squeezing through restrictions, otherwise, my buoyancy/control doesn't let me down. All students are offered, if not already equipped, with a full suit for wreck training dives. What's the problem?

 

[koozemani]

Great demonstration, unfortunately some ears will remain deaf and some eyes blind to the dangers of overhead environments.

 

[tye1138]

I'd love for PADI to make redundancy mandatory for deep/wreck recreational dives, but they won't/haven't. Many of the wreck courses I teach are now in conjunction with sidemount (for those serious to develop penetration skills), but there's always going to be single-tank divers who want to train for wrecks.

What's the problem?

The problem is, you're just abiding by the "rules" which in even your own admission, seem out of whack.

Isn't the whole point of proper instruction to make sure your students are prepared for the future, not just for that particular dive. In my view that would mean diving with pony bottles and extra gas. The whole point is to go above and beyond what is necessary so the students are familiar with the proper gear way before making the plunge.

I'm also kinda shocked your students had such poor understanding of their surroundings, it didn't take long before everything was disturbed. Isn't part of the class to train proper etiquette expected on the dive to help remove those conditions?

Its a good video though, really shows how things can go wrong in a jiff.

 

[DevonDiver]

The problem is, you're just abiding by the "rules" which in even your own admission, seem out of whack.

Isn't the whole point of proper instruction to make sure your students are prepared for the future, not just for that particular dive. In my view that would mean diving with pony bottles and extra gas. The whole point is to go above and beyond what is necessary so the students are familiar with the proper gear way before making the plunge.

I used to insist on redundant air sources (pony) for these courses. The trouble was, hardly any of the divers I trained subsequently used them. In that respect, I felt it was doing more "preparation for the future" by demonstrating the hazards, rather than approaching a "particular dive" in training, where they'd have ponies. It's just a 'reality check' on instruction - an awareness of what actually happens post-training.

What I do see (here in Subic Bay) was dozens of divers every day entering that penetration, or others of similar 'ease' - all without a clue. It seems very benign on entry - and most recreational wreck trained divers judge it as such. They penetrate in ignorance, based up a 'best case scenario' presented to them in their (ineffectual) training. They aren't properly educated about the 'worst case scenario'... how a poorly placed fin can turn the 'easy penetration' into a death-trap in seconds.

The long term benefit - as realized by students - is that they are far more cautious about penetrations....and far more motivated to develop their skills, procedures and equipment in the long term afterwards. Sticking a pony tank onto them never had that effect. Showing them... in first-hand reality... why they need gas redundancy does have that effect. We also do lots of black-mask drills and skills - they very quickly put 2 and 2 together and realize that air-sharing in zero-viz is by no means a certain outcome...

In respect of that film in particular - the intention (which Howard seems to have over-looked) was to show recreational divers in a silt-out. The aim was to create a sense of identification with viewers. I could have used sidemount/backmount divers. However, I felt that 'tech-ifying' the participants would have meant missing the mark with regards to the target demographic of viewers that actually need to see this.

Divers with good wreck/guideline training probably don't need to see this film.

Experienced wreck divers don't need to see this film.

Divers with the education and prudence to consider gas redundancy etcprobably don't need to see this film.

Divers who blunder into 'safe' wreck penetrations, with no clue of the risks or risk mitigations probably DO need to see this film...and identify with it.

I'm also kinda shocked your students had such poor understanding of their surroundings, it didn't take long before everything was disturbed. Isn't part of the class to train proper etiquette expected on the dive to help remove those conditions?

It was a deliberate scenario. I kicked up the silt - for the purposes of education and filming that (educational) video.

Its a good video though, really shows how things can go wrong in a jiff.

That was the point

 

[TSandM]

Andy, I'm with you. You can describe problems until you are blue in the face, but letting divers have a controlled experience of the trouble they can get into teaches far faster and more effectively.

A couple of years ago, I was taken through a cave passage by a friend, who had told us we WOULD silt it out, and did we want to have an experience of zero viz? (Friend is a cave instructor, and we were reasonably experienced cave tourists by that time, but had only done lights-out drills in class, and never been in zero viz.) We said we thought it would be a good thing to learn, so we did it. It was only about maybe 50 feet of passage, and I was convinced I could swim it clean, but I had little understanding of Florida sediments. Our friend was right; it was true, can't-read-gauges-pressed-to-mask zero viz on the way out. It was very interesting and instructive, and left me with a great deal more caution about trying smaller passage in Florida -- and I'm talking stuff that wouldn't even make me stop and THINK in Mexico.

There is understanding at the intellectual level, and understanding at the visceral level, and they are different. I applaud you, Andy, for making these things clear to your students. (BTW, the wreck class I took, years ago, didn't even involve entering a wreck, and I came away from with convinced I had no business doing so )

 

[TONY CHANEY]

Devondiver, I really enjoyed the video and I got right from your orig. posting what you were trying to express. Thanks.

 

[waterpirate]

I applaud your efforts. However I do aggree with the statement that some "wreck ettiquette" would have also gone a long way.
Eric