If a lot of caves where not located on either private or easily controlled land you would be lucky to get people to take any cave course much less cavern, intro, apprentice then cave. As long as anyone can pull their boat up to a wreck site and dive it you will not be able to force any wreck cert much less a multi step program.
Yes, very true. Raising the bar for wreck training would require a diving community consensus - including boat charters and scuba operations. It isn't going to happen, because it would cost them money.
You will always have some people that will want to learn all they can and some that already think they know it all.
Yes... and I think that the PADI Wreck and Ice courses contribute greatly to this misappreciation of personal capability. They should be clearer about the 'end product' of their training, but they aren't.
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.
And because of this my opinion, I dont understand as well, why PADI doesnt 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.
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.
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.
SSI do a simular thing with the TXR programme.
IMHO what they offer today as DSAT Tec 40 is simply nonsense as a tec course.
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.
The (non-Trimix) DSAT courses did initially start as a 2-stage course. It was split into 3 sections to offer a comparable model to the training provided by other agencies (TDI, IANTD etc).. which served the additional benefit of breaking the course into stages and offering both students and instructors a flexible approach to their development. Many divers need time to reconcile and ingrain their training from one stage, before moving on to the next.
Of course, there's nothing to stop a student taking all 3 tec courses as a single program, if they chose to..
For me it would make sense to combine this course with the existing PADI Deep Diver course and to sell it under that name as a PADI (rec) course. So this course would become worth its name as well.
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.
