Boat captain encouraging wreck penetration

[Jack Hammer]

There are lots of swim throughs on the Speigle. It's like a jungle gym for divers. If I can see light at the other end, then it's probably safe. There are also penetration dives on the Speigle and you'll not see any light. You should be trained with the proper equipment and attitude before you attempt those. There are no Scuba police down there, so you'll have to make your own decision on what you're going to do

Thanks for bringing that up Pete. A big part of the problem with "simple" swim throughs is people thinking its safe because they can see light or because since it was safe on one wreck it must be safe on all wrecks. They really have no idea what to look for or where to look for it.

Swim throughs are great for the diver in front who can clearly see the exit, not always so great for the divers behind or to the side of them. Most divers think silt is mainly on the floor, they really don't realize just how much is on the walls, the ceiling, pretty much on everything everywhere, and just how easily it can be stirred up not just from bad kicking techniques but from bubbles or simply just being in its presence. This is part of why proper training and experience is so important.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I dived on a wreck not long ago at which the captain's briefing sounded pretty casual about penetration. He explained that the wreck had been purposefully sunk as a dive site and, as such, had been "sanitized" to remove obstructions and provide many openings. Still, the briefing did not give me enough of a sense whether these were "swim-throughs" that were within my comfort zone or something more. Due to that uncertainty, my buddy and I erred on the side of caution (as we always do) and planned not to enter any openings. Upon reaching the wreck, it became clear that it was not opened up to the extent we are comfortable with. I need to see multiple large openings all within daylight of each other--basically, full of holes like Swiss cheese. But that's just me. Although this one had multiple openings, I felt they were too far apart to be "open water"; I deemed it a cavern dive.

 

[TMHeimer]

The core issue of this discussion seems to be ill-advised encouragement by the Captain vs. everyone take responsibilities for him/herself. While I agree with the second part, we all know that in today's diving, countless people just jump into it with very little or even no "water" experience and/or dive maybe once a year. This is another topic, but considering it, I have to agree with the first part in that the Captain was wrong in his blank (?) encouragement to apparently divers with abilities unknown to him.

 

[KentB]

I'm on the side of Id like that kind of briefing whether or not I plan on actually penetrating the wreck. Some people on board might so a full detailed briefing is good instead of doing multiple briefings or not mentioning it.

I'm an adult I can make my own decisions on my skill level comfort level and what I'm going to do.

 

[boulderjohn]

Big reason being that from all I've read and learned through PADI, entering an overhead environment without proper training is maybe the number two no-no after "never hold your breath".

It's all about knowing your limitations.

PADI encourages divers to dive within the limits of their training and experience. You can extend your limits through an appropriate combination of the two. It is up to each individual to look at the coming dive and determine if it is within those personal limits.

In a recent thread I Described my surprise in learning that PADI considers a basic swim through to be open water. When it uses the word "penetration" in its wreck diving course, it is talking about entering a wreck while laying line, and then turning and retrieving the line while exiting at the point of entry. (No, it does not say that, but that is what is meant.) Entering one door of a well-lighted wheel house and exiting the other is not a "penetration." Once again, personal judgment based on training and experience is necessary in making either a swim through or a penetration.

 

[Storker]

personal judgment based on training and experience is necessary in making either a swim through or a penetration.

And this is the reason I prefer to err on the side of caution and "just say no" to any kind of overhead environment (yes, I'll happily swim below an anchor line, so please don't drag that silly extreme into the discussion). I know that I'm not trained in neither diving nor assessing (fairly benign) OH environments, so I'm quite aware that I don't know what I don't know. And I know a couple of cave divers. When they tell me that they won't enter an overhead environment unless they're geared up properly (manifolded twins, line reel(s), main+2 backup lights etc.), I listen to them and figure that I have no business being in an overhead environment. If I'm going to have a ceiling above me - be it hard or virtual - I'm not going there. Period. Full stop.

I still remember when I was less experienced. I did stuff back then that I wouldn't do today. I didn't know what I didn't know. And that's the reason I'm rather wary of stuff like what the OP is describing. If I - when I was a stupid n00b - had heard the kind of briefing that the OP describes, I might well have tried a penetration into a wreck that I didn't have the knowledge to assess properly. Personal responsibility and all that, but we who are somewhat experienced have a pretty strong impact on the decisions that the n00bs listening to us are making. If someone fairly fresh out of OW class made a wrong decision based on something I'd said, and died because of that, I wouldn't feel particularly happy about it. In fact, I'd feel rather ****** about it. Even if it was the n00b's own, personal decision.

Which is why I take great care to stress the fact that even if something is rather OK for me to do, it may not be quite as OK to do for the n00b who's listening, eyes wide open, to the story I'm telling. Responsibility isn't a zero-sum game.

 

[Compressor]

Due to that uncertainty, my buddy and I erred on the side of caution (as we always do) and planned not to enter any openings. Upon reaching the wreck, it became clear that it was not opened up to the extent we are comfortable with. I need to see multiple large openings all within daylight of each other--basically, full of holes like Swiss cheese. But that's just me. Although this one had multiple openings, I felt they were too far apart to be "open water"; I deemed it a cavern dive.

Exactly the right thing to do and approach to uncertainty.
I'll be happy to have you as a buddy.

PADI encourages divers to dive within the limits of their training and experience. You can extend your limits through an appropriate combination of the two. It is up to each individual to look at the coming dive and determine if it is within those personal limits.

Thank you for this post. It's so basic people forget it. Marie13 did not.

And this is the reason I prefer to err on the side of caution and "just say no" to any kind of overhead environment (yes, I'll happily swim below an anchor line, so please don't drag that silly extreme into the discussion).

Great safe diver. Yes, I'll be happy to have you as a buddy.

Its no accident that some divers don't get into accidents.

 

[lowviz]

...//... Responsibility isn't a zero-sum game.

That is a rather clever statement that speaks to the heart of this thread. I might just "borrow" that quote.

 

[blac86]

Well most divers are adults and capable of making informed and adult decisions. If you feel comfortable hiding behind uniformed decisions and cert cards that's fine, but it isn't "horrifying" that people are presented an option to dive like big boys and big girls.

 

[diver0008]

The core issue of this discussion seems to be ill-advised encouragement by the Captain vs. everyone take responsibilities for him/herself. While I agree with the second part, we all know that in today's diving, countless people just jump into it with very little or even no "water" experience and/or dive maybe once a year. This is another topic, but considering it, I have to agree with the first part in that the Captain was wrong in his blank (?) encouragement to apparently divers with abilities unknown to him.

Hypotheticals and semantics on hearsay.

Encouragement.

That is one novice diver's perception of a pre-dive briefing.

If a DM said it's a nice wreck to penetrate, check it out, and if that qualifies as encouragement, and the DM goes on to describe the environment, all this is within the obvious context of each diver's experience and skill.

Don't want to penetrate? Don't. Don't want to go deep? Don't. Don't want to go solo? Don't.

This is not scuba theory; it's common sense.

If a diver does not know how to dive within their limits, they have no business being on a wreck dive in cold water with bad visibility.

No one is going to force a diver to do anything. You don't even have to get in the water if you don't want to.