Should OW certified divers be taken into a deep wreck? Overhead? Thread split

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

wavethrash

Registered
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
Location
\
# of dives
0 - 24
I was one of the divers on that trip, as most of you will see from my account I am a new diver and new to this site (referenced through my PADI instructor). I'm confident that I can answer what questions you may have. More so I'm sure there is a plethora of knowledge that I can take from this as well, I've talked briefly with my instructor about the events on the Vandenburg, and I'd like to be able to share with the diving community however possible.
Also I am new to these forums, so forgive me for unfamiliarity with posting/replying and providing information. I simply hope to learn from this for my future dives.



A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

This thread was split off from a discussion in the Accidents and Incidents forum. The discussion MAY be somewhat disjointed for that reason. While an interesting and useful discussion, it is not analyzing the reason behind the diver who went missing but rather, is talking about someone else on the dive other than the victim and training programs. For that reason it has been split off and moved to a more appropriate forum. The original thread about the accident may be found here:http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ac.../498589-diver-missing-vandenberg-florida.html Marg, SB Senior Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Forgive the ignorance, but is this ' penetration ' simply a swim through or is it a true enclosed space penetration for which one should have cave/wreck dive training to do ?
 
Forgive the ignorance, but is this ' penetration ' simply a swim through or is it a true enclosed space penetration for which one should have cave/wreck dive training to do ?

From the description, I gathered that it was what would be called a swim through, with at least one exit and probably two visible at all times.
 
As one who went on a guided trust me dive early in my diving on the Spiegel, the definition of visible exit could be in the eye of the beholder. We did a swim through. A one point we were in a large room with doors front and aft. Also openings off to one side admitting light. In hind sight I know that the front door led into a room with a visible exit and the same for the area in back. The lighted "windows" may or may not have led to an exit. So there may have been several exits known to the guide. But to me the only safe one was backtracking the way we had come. (This was on dive 2 on air so not a lot of NDL)
 
From the description, I gathered that it was what would be called a swim through, with at least one exit and probably two visible at all times.

Inside a shipwreck can be called a swim through?
 
Inside a shipwreck can be called a swim through?

Assuming this is not a rhetorical question or the precursor to the much discussed "When is penatration actually penetration" otherwise known as "What the definition of IS is," the simple answer is yes. I'm sure somone will be along shortly to explain in detail (oh wait, Boulderjohn already did, my bad). :shakehead:
 
Why would a guide take someone with your experience to 100' and then do a wreck penetration? This seems reckless to me just by itself. Then when he comes up short one diver after the first time through he does it again! Then continues the dive for another 23 minutes after loosing a diver in his care without letting anyone else know a diver is missing. This in my opinion boarders on criminal negligence.

I am not even going to get into this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll try to respond to what I can, but a lot of your concern is directed to the guide, who I cannot speak for. Thank you all for your response, and I'll try to clarify a few points in the order you all posted.

Rich Keller:
To clarify, 100' was the greatest depth we went to, everything was shallower after that. As to the danger, I don't have the knowledge to answer that, it was a for profit dive center with a very good reputation (recommended by the owner of the location my family and I were staying). After returning us customers to the boat, he got in some surface time (I don't recall how much, but it was shorter than a recreational diver would require) and dove again with a crew member watching him. The man watching him did not dive with the customers, and was in the water while watching him. I do not believe the diver went all the way to the ship, he was simply looking for any signs of bubbles coming from the ship/around it.

Wookie:
Thank you for introducing the "Normalization of deviance", which I am not fully familiar with. As a reasonable individual, I can inference it to be when to go by the book and when things are being handled well enough. To this I should say that had we waited until seeing the crew and diver make physical contact, it is likely we would have seen that never actually occur, and we would have James, alive or otherwise. Other members inquired as to this, so I will add to this concept later.

Rich Keller:
after completing our second swim through (to make sure James didn't go through the wrong section of the wreck), our guide claims to have seen James at the surface, and working with the crew for however many years knew that a trained professional was in the water swimming as soon as the diver hit the surface. I believe if he had not seen him safely at the water we would have indeed surfaced, as is the typical diving protocol.

Jejton:
All 'penetrations' we made involved multiple exit points, the first time we swam through, I could see an exit across the wreck and at the top of the room from the entrance (so 3 points of exit within 20 feet of each other). All other penetrations involved at least 1 entrance and another exit, we never had to turn around. aside from one section in which we made a vertical turn to an exit, I believe I was never without clear line of sight to an exit or a diver within arms reach. If anyone has material to cover these semantics I think we would all appreciate it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Inside a shipwreck can be called a swim through?

Yes it can. If you look through an opening and see the next opening, it can be called a swim through. Whether it is a safe one for a diver without technical training depends upon other factors, such as entanglement hazards, restrictions, and silt.
 
This dive was part of a tour with Lost Reef, we had 3 groups diving with guides, my group of 4 being composed of James (who called himself Jim), another diver, a guide, and myself. I had done two reef dives with Lost Reef on the 31st to ensure I was ready for the Vandenburg, as I was only certified this past October for open water diving. I have been in the ocean many times before, snorkling, surfing, swimming, and also being a lifeguard and swim instructor I have more confidence than most who are new to diving

I mean this when I preface my comment With all Due Respect, but my humble opinion is that with an open water certification...irrespective of your instructor's and the guide's opinions, you had no business being inside that wreck either.

Confidence without proper training can be a killer.

Congratulations for making it back.
 
Last edited:
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom