Padi Wreck Diver manual

[WetBoy101]

What was it we were talking about again?

 

[Dr Wu]

There's no way to teach effective wreck penetration within the structure and length of a PADI wreck diver course.

When I conduct these courses, I use that tiny opportunity as an example of what skills and training are needed for safe wreck penetration. I am pretty emphatic that it is an experience, not a qualification for penetration. If anything, it discourages students from further unsupervised wreck penetration until they have built their skill level up sufficiently.

Fully agree.

No matter how intensive your basic wreck class is, it is not going to train students properly to explore overhead environments in wrecks that have not been "cleansed" for recreational divers.

Penetration should be removed from all basic wreck class syllabus.

Having that opportunity there is just too inviting to new wreck divers.

 

[DevonDiver]

What was it we were talking about again?

Why the OP has restrictions on his wreck penetration, after his PADI Wreck diver course... and why those penetration restrictions increase proportionally with depth.

In order to fully explore his question, the discussion has considered the need for deco training for deep wreck dives, along with the relative merits of the Wreck Diver course for providing the necessary penetration skills. We've also looked at alternative courses, only available at tech level, which do deal with the full spectrum of required wreck penetration skills, procedures and knowledge.

 

[explorer08]

DevonDiver, this is not the first time we are discussing the value of the PADI Deep Diver Specialty course and the borderline between Rec and Tec. First I thought that you are a smart guy who knows what he is doing and what he is talking about but that we seem to disagree in some details. Slowly it appears to me that you are just someone with a distinct point of view (what is not bad in general) but with no arguments to defend or support your point of view. Because what you do, and I don’t remark it first time in this thread, is not to discuss. It’s just picking single points out of others postings, tearing them out of their context and than trying to discredit the opposing opinion by citing them in a wrong context. IMHO that’s a definite sign of lack of own arguments.

And now I want to point out in detail, what I said before.

IMHO wreck penetrations within the range it is allowed today, are acceptable for rec divers, as well as cavern penetrations as allowed in the cavern specialty or as well as diving under ice as taught in the PADI Ice Diver Specialty.

I disagree. It's a blanket generalisation.

To say you can, or are qualified to, penetrate a wreck to XX metres is irresponsible. It pays no heed to the condition of the wreck or the necessity to conduct a risk assessment.

The trouble really emerges when we consider that PADI Wreck divers are not taught to complete an accurate and informed risk assessment of the wreck they are considering entering. For as long as there are no 'silt-out', 'lost-line', 'lost-buddy' or Air-Sharing Exit drills, then exactly how can a wreck diver appreciate the circumstances they are putting themselves into?

What I'd like to see is a more specific definition of what a wreck diver can and cannot do. As with cavern diving, Recreational divers should not penetrate beyond the 'light zone'. They should not pass through 'restrictions' (a size where two divers cannot exit side-by-side whilst comfortably sharing air). They should not enter silted areas. They should run a continous guide line to the entrance. etc

Given that a PADI diver can be 'wreck certified' upon completion of OW, AOW and Wreck (12 dives)... and may never have done an actual penetration, or touched a guideline, during their wreck training.... it seems absurd that they are unilaterally told they are 'qualified' to penetrate 100' into a wreck at 30' depth... or 30' into a wreck at 100' depth. It's absurd and dangerous.

The only one who is generalising here is you!
For me there are only two options why you wrote what you wrote, if you every really read what you quoted from me. Either you just want polemics or its high time for you to reread your PADI materials.

I wrote:

IMHO wreck penetrations within the range it is allowed today, are acceptable for rec divers,…

Do you really know about the restrictions mentioned in the PADI Wreck Diver Specialty Instructor outline, particularly concerning penetration?
Quote from PADI Wreck Diver Specialty Instructor outline, page iv, “Considerations for Open Water Training”:
“Penetration-training dives are to be limited to within the light
zone and within 40 metres/130 feet from the surface, vertical and
horizontal distance included. No out-of-air drills are to be practiced
in the overhead environment.”

And one more quote from the same source, page 1, “Course Overview”:
“3. Upon completing this program, the student should be able to
plan and organize dives to safely explore wrecks found within
depths and conditions as good as or better than those he has
been trained in.
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.“

So, please tell me, where is written and where I have told, that a diver, upon completing the PADI Wreck Diver Specialty, is qualified to penetrate every wreck to XX metres?

Furthermore, if – as pointed out above – PADI Wreck Divers should be able to plan and organize dives to safely explore wrecks found within depths and conditions as good as or better than those they have been trained in and if they should be able to identify the hazards of wreck penetration diving, how can you claim that they “are not taught to complete an accurate and informed risk assessment of the wreck they are considering entering.”?
Are you claiming that every PADI Wreck Diver Specialty Instructor worldwide is violating the standards?

Next, were is written or stated, that PADI Wreck Divers should penetrate wrecks beyond the light zone, that they should pass restrictions they can’t pass comfortably with two divers while airsharing, that they should …?

Where are they unilaterally told that they are 'qualified' to penetrate 100' into a wreck at 30' depth... or 30' into a wreck at 100' depth?

I guess my quotes from the PADI Wreck Diver Specialty Instructor outline are speaking for themselves and are answering all my questions above!

So to the next point:

And because of this my opinion, I don’t understand as well, why PADI doesn’t teach decompression diving and allow it within defined limits as rec diving as well.

Because recreational diving, according to the PADI (and many other agencies) is modelled upon direct, unimpeded access to the surface.

What kind of answer is that? Have you ever read my previous posting?

In my previous posting (no. 28 in this thread) I pointed out that PADI allows limited penetrations of overhead environment in its Wreck Diver, Cavern Diver and Ice Diver course. And now you tell me that they don’t allow it in decompression diving because their recreational diving is modelled upon direct, unimpeded access to the surface.

Your answer is not an answer, its simply praying their mantra!

Therefore again my question:
Why does PADI allow limited penetrations in wreck, cavern and ice diving, but no decompression diving within moderate limits (i.e. as in Tec40)?

My answer is very simple. There is no reason. They are simply not stringent!

Yes, agencies like BSAC do allow limited deco diving within their mainstream scuba programs, but their training system is built to ensure that continual mentoring and progressive skills and experience development are achieved before this happens.

The BSAC '88 tables do include deco information, but it is a long process to get to the level where you can use that... and it is dependant on the diver's skill.

And it’s not only BSAC, it’s the whole CMAS as well. They start with it at the 2* diver level.
So what does PADI hinder to add some more decompression stuff in their rec programs?
And is within the PADI system not everything dependent on the diver’s skill?

Also... I don't see the issue with differentiating PADI and DSAT. They are the same thing, the same organization... they just use a different name to help easily differentiate between the rec and tec realms. If you look at the logo in my signature line, you'll note that it is the 'PADI Tec Rec' program.

I didn’t do anything else. PADI=Rec, DSAT=Tec!

It equates to the technical 'Advanced Nitrox' course offered by the other agencies. It is primarily concerned with introducing new tech divers to the equipment and dive planning necessary, whilst recognizing their inexperience by applying a reasonable depth limitation. What it does achieve is the extension of bottom time, within the 40m range. That's a fair objective IMHO.

If I look into the DSAT Tec40 materials, I don’t see anything technical within. Show that to your neighbours form the other side of the channel, the founders of scuba diving, la grande nation. They will laugh about it. For them, on the 3* diver level, diving up to 60m on air is normal rec diving. And that is not only their Federations opinion. They brought it into the rank of French law.

I don't see the need or logic to combine recreational deep diving with advanced nitrox/deco procedures. Bear in mind that that PADI Deep course uses 40m as an absolute maximum depth. It is mostly concerned with applying higher-level recreational diving skills, rather than being a 'license' to needlessly push the recreational diving limits. Students end the Deep course with a new skill-set and knowledge which benefits their diving in general.. and certainly makes their diving in the 20-30m range more safe and controlled.

I would like to see the reaction of TDI or IANTD, if you would ask them if they would accept DSAT Tec40 as advanced nitrox/deco procedures.:headscratch::d