Recreational Wreck Diving vs Cave Diving. Why the Inconsistency?

[marinediva]

Quote:
Originally Posted by marinediva
Why can't the wrecks be graded.

I am surprised that a qualified wreck instructor would need to ask this. Wrecks change a lot over time. One storm can create new dangers, collapse passages, weaken structures....even change wreck location completely. One passing trawler can coat a wreck with monofilament and steel trace netting..

Am very aware of the deterioration of wrecks due to my studies in archeology. The wrecks I gave examples of before are also examples of protected sites. NO FISH ZONES. Whilst that does not stop rubbish getting stuck on them, it should be noted that they are also 'maintained' by the very people who both have received and issued the permits.

A grading system would allow for changes to grading either elevated or decreased over time.

Most operators in Qld would not allow divers to penetrate a wreck unless they are diving within their experience level.

Sadly there have been some deaths on australian wrecks,
Nearly all the deaths were due to causes not associated specifically with wreck diving.
Like a husband knocking off his wife.

 

[Rick Murchison]

I'm reminded of the guy who fought passionately to remove the Required Helmet Law in Florida. Which I fully support. He vehemently fought to abandon this law, and eventually through the struggle, Florida did drop this law. Less than a year later, that same man sustained a head injury from a motorcycle accident that would have been prevented by a helmet. He died.

Scuba is no different. I'm not going to tell you what to do, but your choices might kill you. Good Luck.

Scuba is *hugely* different.
(1) There is no public safety issue in SCUBA. A diver who kills himself through his own mistakes on a dive isn't likely to crash into anyone else in the process, so there's no need for "the force of law" regulating diving. There is a public safety issue for anything and everything on a public road.
(2) There may be a case for some control over a diver if you're his instructor or buddy, since if he kills himself in your company his family may try to hold you liable, but it's nowhere close to the exposure you have if someone manages to injure or kill themselves crashing into your vehicle.
For those reasons I'm wholly against any "SCUBA Law," but I am *for* helmet laws *unless* lawsuits for head injuries to helmetless riders and the expenditure of public funds for the care and feeding of helmetless riders with head injuries are expressly prohibited.

Rick

 

[Rhone Man]

Quote:
Originally Posted by marinediva
Why can't the wrecks be graded.

I am surprised that a qualified wreck instructor would need to ask this. Wrecks change a lot over time. One storm can create new dangers, collapse passages, weaken structures....even change wreck location completely. One passing trawler can coat a wreck with monofilament and steel trace netting..

I suspect the truth is that wrecks are graded, albeit informally. Dive ops who know a diver and know a wreck do feel qualified to advise: "You know what, I am afraid you're just not ready to dive the HMS Ballbreaker yet."

 

[Superlyte27]

Scuba is *hugely* different.
(1) There is no public safety issue in SCUBA. A diver who kills himself through his own mistakes on a dive isn't likely to crash into anyone else in the process, so there's no need for "the force of law" regulating diving. There is a public safety issue for anything and everything on a public road.
(2) There may be a case for some control over a diver if you're his instructor or buddy, since if he kills himself in your company his family may try to hold you liable, but it's nowhere close to the exposure you have if someone manages to injure or kill themselves crashing into your vehicle.
For those reasons I'm wholly against any "SCUBA Law," but I am *for* helmet laws *unless* lawsuits for head injuries to helmetless riders and the expenditure of public funds for the care and feeding of helmetless riders with head injuries are expressly prohibited.

Rick

No issue there, the head injuries are often terminal.
But you are seriously missing the point.

 

[rjack321]

No issue there, the head injuries are often terminal.
But you are seriously missing the point.

No Rick gets your point. You seemed to have missed the costs your "freedoms" impose on society.

Its already a PITA to get life insurance if you are a diver. The more idiots who teach themselves stuff like wreck penetration because they can make it worse for the rest of us.

 

[kombiguy]

>>For those reasons I'm wholly against any "SCUBA Law," but I am *for* helmet laws *unless* lawsuits for head injuries to helmetless riders and the expenditure of public funds for the care and feeding of helmetless riders with head injuries are expressly prohibited.<<

What about the expenditure of public funds for scuba injuries? Or too many big macs? Or rock climbing, or parachute jumping? We expend public funds all the time for risky activities. To be consistent, one should include or exclude all risks to health.
I'm on the include side, since I don't want my freedom curtailed because of "public expense."

 

[Superlyte27]

Its already a PITA to get life insurance if you are a diver. The more idiots who teach themselves stuff like wreck penetration because they can make it worse for the rest of us.

Not if you are in FL. Diving is not even classified as a dangerous hobby in FL with several insurance companies. I can even insure cave divers.

 

[vladimir]

it is also unfair to put other divers at risk who may have to conduct rescue or body recovery operations. Campaigning for personal freedom is one issue. Putting others at risk is another.

I have a question (not an opinion--a question). This point was raised a dozen times in the epic Vortex thread. Is the risk of a recovery dive substantially greater than a recreational dive in the same spot? I understand it would be very unpleasant, but presumably the recovery divers do dives in the same conditions and same place for their own leisure as they would be doing for a recovery. I guess removing a body creates some task-loading they otherwise wouldn't have, but so does removing china or a ship's bell. So, how are they risking their lives, beyond what they do for their own leisure?

 

[DevonDiver]

Inside a shipwreck? Yes, I would assume there to be a considerable level of risk...on a par with cave recoveries. There may also be issues where the body is physically trapped in wreckage or heavily entangled. A body also needs to be 'wrapped/secured' before transport...and would take a lot of maneuvering. Basically, you'd plan to locate, wrap and transport the large cumbersome body in zero viz, through restrictions, past entanglements etc etc

There was a body inside a ship that I used to dive on. It took 4 years before anyone even found the body... and that was a lucky glance through a porthole (equipment was seen sticking through silt). I was on the boat the day the body was found. The fatality had become disorientated and worked himself very deep into the wreck. His location was virtually inaccessible to a recovery team. In the end, a government/commercial team was used to recover the remains.

 

[Rhone Man]

Is the risk of a recovery dive substantially greater than a recreational dive in the same spot?

On the TDI Adv Wreck Diver course you have to locate and recover a (simulated) body inside of a wreck (ie. your instructor playing dead). I have never done it for real, but based on that drill it is pretty hard work getting a limp body out of an enclosed space following a line, even when working in pairs.

The only good thing about a dead body rather than an instructor, is you presumably you are not afraid of bashing his sadistic head against the stairwells on the way out in case he fails you on the course.