Recreational overheads, especially wrecks

[boulderjohn]

There are risks in all areas of life. The only way to avoid them is to stay in bed, in which case we risk bedsores. That is especially true in diving, and if you really look, you can find a case where someone had an incident in every kind of dive imaginable. The only way to prevent them all is to prohibit all diving.

The worst mistake we can make is to try to make absolute rules that try to eliminate all judgment. A person would be a fool to try to walk across a multiple lane freeway in a city in the middle of rush hour, but walking across a one lane dirt path in the middle of a field in Oklahoma is as safe as it gets. Should we have a rule stating that no one should ever cross any kind of road without a crossing signal because of the danger of that rush hour freeway?

In a thread on this very topic back when I was having my discussion with PADI, one SB participant said that "the list of people who have died while going through simple swim-throughs is long indeed." I asked him for a link to that list. He said that, well, there is no link, because it is a list he made himself. Well, could he put it on the Internet? No, he couldn't--too much work. Well, could he provide one example from his list? He did not reply. (I have never heard of such a case myself.)

In a later thread, I posted a video in which two divers swim a total of maybe 15 feet through a brightly lit, wide open wheelhouse, exit the door at the other side and continue on their way around the wreck. I asked the same person mentioned in the previous paragraph, a technical diving instructor, if he would do what they did. No, he responded, he would lay line for those 15 feet, turn around, retrieve the line, and continue around the wreck while avoiding that dangerous wheelhouse swim-through. Sorry, but I call BS on that. I don't think anyone in his right mind would do that, and I have certainly never seen it done.

Making an absolute rule saying common diving practices are forbidden in all cases is just an invitation for people to ignore the rule in some cases. Yes, there is a chance that someone crossing a one lane dirt road in Oklahoma could get hit by a runaway tractor, but most people assume that the odds of that happening are slim enough that they are willing to take that risk. Those people are using judgment, and judgment is a part of every dive as well.

 

[Ojai Diver]

It's venality. You should never do a swim through or penetration in PADI's eyes, until you cough up $300 (or what ever it was, I forget) for their one day wreck diving class, and then and only then you can.

 

[boulderjohn]

It's venality. You should never do a swim through or penetration in PADI's eyes, until you cough up $300 (or what ever it was, I forget) for their one day wreck diving class, and then and only then you can.

If you read the opening post and article, you would have seen that this is not true. As I wrote in the article, PADI said that in general swim-throughs are considered open water and can even be done on in some cases on OW training dives. They are not mentioned in the current wreck diving course for that reason.

 

[Trace Malinowski]

As a tech & cave instructor, I think laying line through a swim-through is silly. But, knowledge of how to not become any more lost than you are in the event of a silt-out is not a difficult skill to learn. The proper use of a safety reel is, IMHO, the difference between life or death in any overhead. Benign things have a way of developing teeth. A benign wreck dive became a lessons learned article I wrote for American Lifeguard Magazine. That incident was due to record current, but normally the wreck was an easy-breezy dive AOW divers would do. Three tech divers, including myself, ended up fighting for our lives.

 

[Ojai Diver]

Every day of the year, divers around the world are entering overhead environments. It might be simple swim-throughs in places like Cozumel or wide open wrecks in the South Florida artificial reef program. They do so despite the fact that the only language you see in almost all recreational diving agency literature is "Don't do it!"

I had an email exchange with PADI about this last year, and in that exchange, they said that that kind of diving is perfectly acceptable, and they argued that the language in their publications does not prohibit it. I argued that is sure seemed to prohibit it,

[SIC]

I did read the opening post, but perhaps I misunderstood what you said from your last sentence, above.

I am still not able to access your article.

 

[boulderjohn]

[SIC]

I did read the opening post, but perhaps I misunderstood what you said from your last sentence, above.

I am still not able to access your article.

Yes--and as I said, PADI said it was a misunderstanding, and when they saw that it was an understandable misunderstanding, they agreed to new wording.

I have added a direct link to a download from ScubaBoard.

 

[Trace Malinowski]

I should add to my opinion that as far as the new wording is concerned, I think John deserves kudos for getting PADI to take a definitive stand on the issue. It's good for places like school buses in quarries. It's bad in some wrecks that aren't as benign as a diver might think.

 

[EireDiver606]

Actually I am guilty of the going through overhead environments without training.

This was right after fundies. We followed the guide through caverns and some of them weren’t short either, maybe 50m underwater. Which is a lonnggg way if you have a problem underwater. It was fairly wide and no silt, just sand but it was fine as tight passages were rock so no silly out could have happened.

Even still I was only one on long hose.

When the guide was doing the pre briefs he said we will be going around all the caves, I thought he meant going “around” not through.
I thought about it afterwards and it was fine, everything went well and there was some experience with us but even still, it’s a violation of GUE and PADIs rule. It wasn’t s swim through it was a cavern.

I felt like saying it to them, but I didn’t. Maybe I should have adobe of the divers wasn’t very experienced at all -maybe 12 dives... then again it’s not about experience but also training and practice.

I will be sure to say this next time though.

 

[nolatom]

Very good article, John, and much appreciated by this rec diver. Yes, we've all done it, usually in small groups--typically swim-throughs of a vessel wheelhouse, from wing door to wing door, well "scrubbed" of silt by current and by divers' movements, and plenty of windows for light. Sometimes a narrow conning tower, such as on Oriskany, where the transverse swim-through is short. And occasionally at "Hole in the Wall" off Jupiter, where we traverse a large hole in the reef at about 125-130' (so we are exceeding the 130 lateral-plus-vertical number I just read in your article, and which seems a reasonable limit). All of these were in warm, clear water too, which is a big factor I think in staying relaxed, breathing slow, and watching your pressure gauge and nitrogen ticks like a hawk.

It also helps I think to have good buoyancy control, so you can gently "breathe" your way up and down within an overhead without disturbing your inflate/deflate buttons which can yield an overcorrection you don't want inside a "room".

Thanks for bringing this out of the closet (I don't think it was "in" all that much, anyway ;-)

 

[Trace Malinowski]

I know a team of GUE-F divers that practice for Cave 1 in the Ballroom at Ginnie. I totally get it. I also get what John is saying. The risk is way low. I just think it's funny that instructors and shop owners tell divers they HAVE TO take some bullsh*t class, but it's okay not to take an important one when your diving places you on the edge of deadly.