Recreational Wreck Diving vs Cave Diving. Why the Inconsistency?

[DevonDiver]

I am a critic of recreational wreck training. I think that wreck penetration is equally as dangerous and specialist as cave diving.

I think that 'wreck diving' without penetration is simply 'metal reef diving'. It simply doesn't need a specialist course of training.

Cave diving is governed and regulated by independant authorities, that effectively remove it from the domain of mainstream recreational agencies. This serves to ensure that appropriate and comprehensive training is given to participants, along with strict regulation of activities. In addition, many national and regional government organisations will impost regulations on cave diving activities.

Even recreational cavern diving is subject to increased regulation...with course standards requiring a fully qualified cave instructor, rather than a regular non-specialist recreational instructor.

Why is this not the same for wreck diving?

IMHO, the recreational wreck training is woefully ineffective. It is the preserve of the recreational scuba agencies and they have failed to treat it differently to any other area of diving 'interest'.

A PADI instructor can qualify to teach wreck courses solely on the basis that they had one days training or they can even self-certify providing they have 20 logged wreck dives. That basically means that any PADI instructor can teach wreck diving, irrespective of their capability. It also means that the instructors themselves have no real appreciation of what they are teaching. I don't think this attitude reflects any care or consideration for the dangers of wreck diving.

Wreck courses can be taught by instructors with no background in wreck diving. :depressed:

Wreck courses don't have to include penetration dives. :depressed:

Wreck courses don't include mandatory penetration related skills. :depressed:

Here's a brief review of the relevant PADI Wreck course standards, from an experienced wreck diver perspective:

The goals of PADI Wreck Diver training are:
1. Upon completing this program, the student should be able
to demonstrate practical wreck diving knowledge, including
recognizing and avoiding potential hazards, and planning
procedures that make wreck diving fun.

Example of Penetration Hazards:
Silt Out - Not covered on course
Entanglement - Not covered on course
OOA/Air Share - Not covered on course
Lost line - Not covered on course
Entangled in line- Not covered on course
Lost Buddy - Not covered on course
Lost Exit - Not covered on course
Lost Light - Not covered on course

4. Upon completing this program, the student should be able
to identify the hazards of wreck penetration diving and demonstrate
the techniques and procedures required to minimize
those hazards.

Again... what wreck penetration skills are taught in a course that only allows 1 penetration?

What wreck penetration skills can be taught by a PADI instructor after they had their 1 day instructor course?

The only answer to minimize these risks is "Don't Penetrate". So what's the point of doing a specialist wreck course?

 

[Tortuga68]

Next you'll be complaining that Underwater Basketweaving isn't a real speciality

 

[DevonDiver]

It's not just about PADI...it's all recreational wreck diving. This certainly isn't an agency bash.

Whenever I mention 'proper' penetration procedures...I seem to get some divers/instructors who roll their eyes and dismiss that as being reserved for 'technical' divers.

This doesn't happen with cave/cavern diving, so I wondered why there was an inconsistency?

 

[vladimir]

I think that 'wreck diving' without penetration is simply 'metal reef diving'.

A PADI instructor can qualify to teach wreck courses solely on the basis that they had one days training or they can even self-certify providing they have 20 logged wreck dives. That basically means that any PADI instructor can teach wreck diving, irrespective of their capability.

What a great concept: self-certification. Unfortunately I'm not a PADI instructor, so I can't self-certify as a wreck instructor. I do have more than 20 wreck dives though, and I am a PADI-certified diver, so, logically, I can self-certify as a wreck diver. Thanks, Andy, I am printing out a card right now.

One difference between wreck diving and cave diving is that it would be a lot harder to deny access to a wreck, it seems. A lot of the self-regulation of cave diving seems motivated by the desire to retain access by assuring the gate-keepers that there won't be a body count. Personally, I think people should be free to be as foolish as they choose. If that includes wreck penetration without training (or a clue), so be it.

 

[TSandM]

Actually, I think there ARE things about recreational (non-penetration) wreck diving that could make a fine and useful course.

Things I learned in my wreck workshop: Finding a wreck with the depth sounder. Deploying a shot line. Running line from the shot to the wreck. Specific hazards of wrecks, including a discussion of the instability of metal structures that have been underwater long periods of time (pertains not only to penetration, but even to swimming under hulls or other structure).

A couple of other things that could be included -- shooting a bag if you are unable to make it back to the upline; some information on ship structure and what to look for when you are diving a wreck (some education about this might make wreck dives more interesting for ME!)

I think you can make a very useful recreational specialty class for diving "metal reefs".

I think wreck penetration deserves special training, but I'm not sure it requires an agency to do it. I do think instructors should have overhead training and significant experience.

 

[murfef]

I agree, it should require more training by trained instructors.

 

[DevonDiver]

What a great concept: self-certification. Unfortunately I'm not a PADI instructor, so I can't self-certify as a wreck instructor. I do have more than 20 wreck dives though, and I am a PADI-certified diver, so, logically, I can self-certify as a wreck diver.

Yep...it's ironic isn't it!

A PADI Cavern instructor needs a full cave-diving qualification. It's understood that they need to understand that environment. But that's not equally true for wreck diving.

It's scary, but a lot of divers were probably certified for wreck diving by instructors who have less wreck experience than them.

To me it says that the industry (not just PADI) doesn't feel that there are special circumstances or risks inherent with wreck diving....than say 'Underwater Photo', Navigation or Fish ID.

One difference between wreck diving and cave diving is that it would be a lot harder to deny access to a wreck, it seems. A lot of the self-regulation of cave diving seems motivated by the desire to retain access by assuring the gate-keepers that there won't be a body count. Personally, I think people should be free to be as foolish as they choose. If that includes wreck penetration without training (or a clue), so be it.

It's a liability issue. Freshwater cave operations/locations take action to ensure or minimise opportunity for untrained people to enter cave systems. They ban lights. They place warning signs. They brief staff. Customers sign declarations. etc etc This is because the industry chooses to identify cave diving as a specialist and higher-risk activity. Operations protect themselves from liability by taking prudent and reasonable measures.

The same is not true for operations that take divers to wreck sites. If the industryapproached wreck diving differently, then the operations would have to approach it differently also.

But for as long as wreck diving is 'just another 4-dive speciality course', who can blame the dive operations or divers themselves for not taking it seriously?

 

[waterpirate]

Just how restrictive do you plan on being to my liberties, in the pursuit of validating some one elses ego and or inflating their wallet? You can not "fix stupid" through specialties or education. If there was a DUI specialty in drivers education do you think people would do it less or more?
Eric

 

[DeepSeaExplorer]

Recreational wreck diving is not technical diving and it doesn't rise to the level of training necessary for cave diving. I would not support making a wreck class required. What problem are we trying to solve, exactly? Cave training developed because people were dying in caves.

Now, technical wreck diving, with major penetration, okay that's different. There's already a course for that, but I think you'll find few takers since many/most wreck divers are independent, self-developed types.

I don't support the type of regulation you're talking about. And, yes, I too consider it a money grab.

 

[Rhone Man]

I am a critic of recreational wreck training. I think that wreck penetration is equally as dangerous and specialist as cave diving.

By and large I agree with what you say, but (for both wrecks and caves) there is penetration and there is penetration. Defining penetration is unable to access directly to the surface turns every ledge into a 'cavern'. Similarly, there are swim throughts in wrecks and reefs alike that you can 'penetrate' which are big enough to drive a mack truck through. I have no problem with a completent diver ducking under something where the circumstances are generally benign (ie. lots of light, absence of silt risk, absence of entanglement risk). It is no more dangerous than trying to wrestle lobsters out from under a ledge.

I think that 'wreck diving' without penetration is simply 'metal reef diving'. It simply doesn't need a specialist course of training.

Mostly agree, but I would make the point that 'metal reefs' tend to present more entanglement hazards in terms of leftover nets and monofilament.

EDIT: I should just add that I remember thinking that my PADI wreck diver course was quite worthwhile. It certainly opened my eyes to risks I hadn't been aware of, and introduced me to my lifelong hatred of reels that bird-nest and jam. I am not saying that it prepared me to penetrate the Andrea Doria or anything else.