Wreck penetration and queuing

[Redshift]

First, after any admonition that PADI gives, they immediately follow it with "unless you have the proper training" which they are more than happy to sell to you.

Yes, but we are not talking here about divers who undergo further training. It's about those who don't and what's being said that some regulations are only for training and can be forgotten afterwards.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I have never told a student to forget the recommended limits from their class. Now this is with the caveat that my OW divers certification limit is 100 ft out of the OW class. They get the skills and knowledge to do that. But they are also told repeatedly that they need to work up to that depth over time. Not on dive number 10 or even 20 like some unscrupulous operators would take them to that soon. If they want to get there sooner then they can come back to take more training.

But overheads are an absolute no no. I would guess I make this clear oh, 10 or 15 times during the class and on checkouts.

Regardless of what agency standards say I also have my own morals and ethics I go by. That means if I am not specifically training the student to do penetrations they do not get done.

If leading a dive with non overhead trained divers we do not do swim thrus of more than a body length and two divers have to be able to comfortably swim through side by side. If they can't it's a no go. I don't see how any "pro" with any ethics can lead non overhead trained divers into them. It boggles my mind at the level of non caring and unprofessional behavior this demonstrates.

It's even worse when they in all reality don't even know these people, their actual level of training, their level of experience, and their level of comfort. As an instructor certified to teach decompression and wreck penetration I would not dive with these so called "pro's". They are too reckless and irresponsible in their attitudes towards safety for me to trust. I'd feel better diving alone.

 

[beanojones]

First, after any admonition that PADI gives, they immediately follow it with "unless you have the proper training" which they are more than happy to sell to you.

Second, the classes you mention predate any tech classes PADI has and also predate the term tech diving and its divergence from other recreational diving. They could work these classes into the tech diving side of PADI, however the additional training needed before the actual classes would put them at a disadvantage in the marketplace.

My point, which you seemed to gotten exactly, to a point, is that PADI broke their own rules to take the money for these activitities (because they had no other option if they did not want to send people to outside agencies for training). The reason they had to break their own rules about recreational diving was they had no in-house choice.

However, the idea of "not sending people to outside agencies" is not really the case since the instrcutor has to a full Cave certification by an outside cave training agency. In other words PADI actually recgnized that they as an agency were not equipped to teach it without outside help. And they recommend the instructor be in full cave rig. And then they explicitly forbid the student divers from wearing doubles.

SO there is an insane mishmash of ideas here: The instructor in charge is recommended to be, and likely wants to be in full cave gear, because proper training, she got from an outside agency, has taught her that being in an overhead in a potential siltout situation means that fully redundant gear is not just wise but a basic requirement. But if she actually knows what she is doing, she wants the divers to be similarly equipped, because students can get themselves lost and separated. But they are not allowed to be. I actually understand the reasoning (dressing students in different gear than the instrcutor enforces their lack of skill/training), but it is silly, because if Cavern Diver specialty holding divers actually use their training outside of class then no one has redundant gear in a hard over head environment.

Wreck diving is unfortunately not even this sensible since

No out-of-air drills are to be practiced in the overhead environment.

So no direct access to the surface, and no practicing handling this situation. Which is exactly the situation that would show a diver that wreck penetration is not something they can handle, in recreational gear, at their level of training. In other words, PADI is counting on the fact that bad things don't usually happen even to those doing ill-advised things, instead of practicing to handle potential problems in a matter of fact way. And there is no requirement for outside training for the instructor, so the instrcutor is similarly unaware of just what he is doing by training divers to penetrate in non-redundant gear, in addition to teaching in non-rendundant gear without long hoses. Also no requirement that the instructor be in full wreck gear (fully redundant gear with a long hose), as it should be since the instrcutor likely has no training himself on how to use it anyway.

And a requirement that the students have snorkels etc. At least they don't ban doubles explicitly in this course.

My take is there there is no longer a requirement to play games with where they draw the line in order to offer training for these pursuits, because they do offer technical training in fully redundant gear now (Don't get me started on the fact that on the tech side they allow single tank deco dives, though.). More to the point for the sport as a whole, the sooner we require high demand classes have some real experience (100 dives) and more training, and more training to teach (tech instructor training), the better.

And for me personally, I can stop having the stupid discussions about the "standard PADI gear setup" with no-brain fellow PADI instructors. One of the reason that I get to hear from fellow PADI instructors that it is "not allowed" to teach with a long hose or with full redundancy is because they simply have no idea what a long hose is for, or why full redundancy is ever needed. And these are PADI Wreck Diver Instructors. I simply do not teach the PADI Wreck Diver Course because it is as written a recipe for bad things happening. Here's what a cluster fudge it is: guiding fun divers into an overhead is usually justified by saying "I am a Wreck Diving instrcutor, and I am conducting

special orientation dives for certified divers

Because under the PADI confusion as it stands, that is, in fact, completely allowed. Because bright lines about overhead environments were fudged in a money grab, and we have not corrected them.

Understanding is good for the sport.

Continuing Education, especially for instructors who tend to fossilize their thinking otherwise, is good for the sport.

PADI fudging their own rules to keep overhead environment training, diving and guiding on the recreational side is not. It's interfering with a bunch of things even ignoring the most important issue of safety.

---------- Post added July 12th, 2014 at 01:50 PM ----------

Yes, but we are not talking here about divers who undergo further training. It's about those who don't and what's being said that some regulations are only for training and can be forgotten afterwards.

And beyind that the meta-point that the instructors themselves often undergo no training whatsoever as a Wreck Diver, and then teach the Wreck Diving course.

So even if there is training, what is being transmitted?

 

[Bob DBF]

Yes, but we are not talking here about divers who undergo further training. It's about those who don't and what's being said that some regulations are only for training and can be forgotten afterwards.

For those who don't, it may have as much to do with the quality of the instruction, as the attitude of the diver. If it is seen by the student "...that some regulations are only for training and can be forgotten afterwards", it is because the instructor is making up arbitrary rules or is not giving the student a clear understanding of why the rules are used and the effects of SCUBA diving. It is not surprising to me, as the book study, pool sessions and OW sessions can be done in a short time with different instructors. I could see someone with a native talent for SCUBA looking at the OW training and catch phrases as a joke.

I took my formal OW training after "informal" training, of various sorts, and 17 years of diving. OW was done over 8 weeks, classes every Thursday night with pool and/or ocean most of those weekends. During that class, the instructor insured it was not a "ticket punch" or joke for me. There are still instructors around like that, but I would bet it is not the norm.

OW certification definition from RSTC, which PADI, SSI and others look to for training standards.

(RSTC OW Diver)Open water certification qualifies a certified diver to procure air, equipment, and other
services and engage in recreational open water diving without supervision. It is the intent of this
standard that certified open water divers shall have received training in the fundamentals of recreational
diving from an instructor (see definition). A certified open water diver is qualified
to apply the knowledge and skills outlined in this standard to plan, conduct, and log open-water,
no-required decompression dives when properly equipped, and accompanied by another certified
diver

Nowhere does it say the OW diver is limited to 60' or that he is restricted to the conditions he was trained in. By using these "rules" rather than preparing the diver to understand the complexity of planning a dive in the recreational range, not only is the diver deprived of the tools to plan the dive but also the understanding of the dangers he must mitigate when making the dive.

And on the other hand, the divers that believe the platitudes are now dependent on figures of authority to keep them safe in new situations, and the "trust me" dives begin.




Bob
-------------------------------------

That's my point, people, by and large, are not taught that diving can be deadly, they are taught how safe it is, and they are not equipped with the skills, taught and trained to the level required to be useful in an emergency.

 

[beanojones]

Nowhere does it say the OW diver is limited to 60'

It is a PADI thing, that. 130 is the broad industry agreed upon recreational limit that is written into most insurance policies.

60 feet comes from RSTC limits on Open Water class depth limits, together with the PADI idea that a diver should dive within limits established by their training and gradually expand (or not) their limits with experience and/or training.

So it can be taught as a reasoned out thing, as long as intructors are attempting to actually hit 60 feet in the class.

(I would not overestimate the effect RSTC has on PADI, though.)

 

[boulderjohn]

Yes, but we are not talking here about divers who undergo further training. It's about those who don't and what's being said that some regulations are only for training and can be forgotten afterwards.

People are forgetting that the specific limits for OW classes are guidelines for the instructor. An instructor is supposed to teach within certain limits to help ensure the safety of the student. It does not mean that when the student goes out, continues diving, and grows in skill, that he or she must still dive within the limits of that initial OW training.

 

[kafkaland]

People are forgetting that the specific limits for OW classes are guidelines for the instructor. An instructor is supposed to teach within certain limits to help ensure the safety of the student. It does not mean that when the student goes out, continues diving, and grows in skill, that he or she must still dive within the limits of that initial OW training.

Yes. But as a new diver who is growing in skills and experience rapidly, I appreciate having some big red flags as to where additional formal training is required: overheads of any kind (hard or soft) is a good bright line. I don't think it's a good idea to blur those lines with these teaser courses, or with what some dive ops are doing. When the time comes for me to venture there, I think I will seek out a reputable instructor from an agency with a rigorous curriculum to get this training. The only exception may be the ice diving course: I think the PADI one looks quite good and I may take it next winter - any thoughts on this? In the meantime, I have plenty to explore, practice, and learn in open-water environment, without pushing the envelope past those red lines.

 

[BDSC]

I have never told a student to forget the recommended limits from their class. Now this is with the caveat that my OW divers certification limit is 100 ft out of the OW class. They get the skills and knowledge to do that. But they are also told repeatedly that they need to work up to that depth over time. Not on dive number 10 or even 20 like some unscrupulous operators would take them to that soon. If they want to get there sooner then they can come back to take more training.

I'm not sure I am following what you are saying here. The way I read this, you are saying when divers come out of your OW class, they are certified to 100 ft because you have provided them the skills to be able to do that. (Did you actually take them on a 100 ft dive?) But then you say they shouldn't attempt something like that even in their first 20 dives. If they want to dive to 100 ft sooner than 20 dives, they need to come back to you for more training. Why? What else are you going to train and teach them that would allow them to go to 100 ft sooner than 20 dives? You claim they already have the skills for that. The bottom line is, they either have the skills and knowledge to do the dives to that level or they don't. If they need more training from you to dive to a depth of 100 ft before 20 dives, then you haven't given them the knowledge and skills to do the dives like you claim.

 

[boulderjohn]

Yes. But as a new diver who is growing in skills and experience rapidly, I appreciate having some big red flags as to where additional formal training is required: overheads of any kind (hard or soft) is a good bright line. I don't think it's a good idea to blur those lines with these teaser courses, or with what some dive ops are doing.

Unfortunately, it is hard to draw a really bright line. The stance DeconDiver took was absolute. Did you get certified in a fresh water lake? Better take additional training before you try salt water. Did you get certified in water that was 78° F? Better get additional training before you try water at 77.5° F.

At some point you have to learn to make your own decisions and think for yourself.

Let's go back to that shallow arch a few feet below the surface on the coral wall next to the hotel in Cozumel I mentioned earlier. Imagine this scenario. Beginning snorkelers are above. Every now and then in their clumsy and untrained way, they dive down, swim through the arch, and go back to the surface. In the meantime, two divers who just checked in decide to do a shakedown dive off that wall before the serious dive week they have planned starting the next day. They are both NAUI Master divers with over 1,000 dives, but they do not have either cavern certification or wreck certification. They are not tech divers. They want to swim through the arch, just as the snorkelers are.

The bright line you want is "My God, No! You are going to die a horrid, wretched death if you try it!" My bet, though, is they will look at their experience and decide that they have the ability to go through that arch without technical training. I think a lot of divers would.

If you were in that situation, would you go through the arch, or would you wait until you had spent several thousand dollars to get cave certified?

 

[chillyinCanada]

The majority of lively discussion on this thread has lept well past ballastbelly's original post. My concern in these regards is that it often seems that a new diver won't be able to follow what is being expressed. For one example, many years ago despite having had many dives, could not understand the nature of lines in wrecks or caves.

That said, in the way back days, I never forgot the instruction I recieved regarding overhead environments. This was reinforced by a personal experience.

Ballastbelly, I was last in line for a short swim through. As my head entered the opening, then my shoulders, suddenly, I was brought to a stop by a tugging. The hose coming off the first stage on my regulator had caught onto a bump of rock at entrance. It took me a bit to figure out what was going on and 'untangle'. By then, my group was long gone.

I've been diving on a few wrecks. Generally, wrecks are not my thing. I have no desire to go through one regardless of ease. There's generally lots to see outside and on the wreck.