Recreational Wreck Diving vs Cave Diving. Why the Inconsistency?

Penetration wreck diving.... (tick all that apply)

  • Wreck penetration requires no specialised equipment and procedures.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    118

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I do think that sometimes, things that don't go well in a class are the best learning experiences.

My wreck "class" was a workshop run by local divers. We spent an evening in lecture, and a day on critical skills in shallow water. The third day was to be an experience dive on a real wreck off a charter boat, but weather prevented that, so we went back and did a second day of critical skills. During that day, we simulated running line into a wreck for 18 minutes; we then turned and tried to execute a lights-out exit (not even gas sharing, just lights-out). At 32 minutes, the instructor cut the drill, because we had pulled off a couple of ties and managed to wrap the line around Peter's manifold to the point where he was NEVER going to get loose.

It was an incredibly sobering experience, and told me I had no business doing wreck penetration until my basic diving skills were much better than they were. I don't think anything the instructor could have TOLD us would have had as much impact as what we did to ourselves.

I do agree that the story about following folks into a siltout is scary, but I'd have to know a bit more about the wreck to agree that it was really dangerous (i.e. how far can you penetrate before coming to an obvious exit? How much gas was everybody carrying? How well did the instructor know the area where you were?). This may have been planned as a learning exercise.
 
I do think that sometimes, things that don't go well in a class are the best learning experiences.

I remember getting a valve stuck in some chicken wire that had come down from the roof insulation in the boat during my Adv Wreck course (whilst wearing a blacked out mask). No way I could get it loose by touch, and guess what, knives are not very good at cutting chicken wire. Since then I always carry trauma shears.

But once I put a regular mask on again, it was absurdly easy to free the valve.
 
Well there's your problem. Well some of them anyway

Agreed. This is why I felt that there should have been pre-reqs. At a minimum, everyone should have had good buoyancy, finning and reel skills going into the class.

So the people that were on the course weren't qualified for it?

Some were, others were not. Again, this is my opinion only and there was no official review prior to enrolling.

These three statemements don't seem to go together with each other let alone the above quotes

I felt it was a great class because I learned a LOT. Things certainly did not go according to plan and while multi-tasking in a high-stress situation, I managed through. I now know better where my basic skills stand, what dangers really constitute overhead environments, etc. In this regard, I thought the class was great for me.

I'm not someone who posts here agency-bashing or telling people what they should or shouldn't do, but your post was pretty scary IMO

It was a very scary experience. In all reality, the danger was not very great, but having experienced zero viz for the first time in an overhead environment scared me a lot. I think if we were all on the same page going into the class, things would have gone smoother. However, maybe I wouldn't have learned some serious lessons?
 
Having recently completed the PADI wreck cert, I can say that there was a definition of what the recreational wreck course qualified a student to do: penetrate a wreck within the ambient light zone, no more than 130 linear feet from the surface, where conditions allowed for side-by-side air sharing. I was also trained to evaluate the condition of the wreck and the entry point to determine if entry was advisable.

I took the same course (with a great instructor) and it didn't qualify me to dive the Doria...but I do feel competent enough to evaluate a deeper wreck and make the decision to penetrate where there are big enough places to pass within the light zone (obviously artificial reefs are set up for this better than natural wrecks)

I did a great dive on the Vandenberg last year and we spent most of the time inside well within egress!

With enough instruction, and avoiding "trust me" dives...(or people that say let's just go down this stairwell and come right back) you can have a blast!
 
Last edited:
I'm sure that like much (all?) instruction, the instructor is key to setting the right expectations.

My experiencing in "observing" a "Wreck class" was to be along with the DM outside the wreck, while the instructor and students penetrated via a small opening and entered an enclosed room (maybe 30 x 30 x 20 or slightly larger). After a little while the silt started coming out the openings. It was a harrowing thing to watch and I was very glad they all survived.

I knew before that 'recreational wreck penetration' was not something I'd ever take part in. Or ever wanted to be around after this.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom