Do cave divers need wreck training?

[boulderjohn]

The students reported to me that there were no lost line drills; no black mask drills; no long-hose, confined space, blacked-out air sharing or even a silt out 'experience'. No practice diving with or using a redundant gas supply, e.g., a slung pony. They read only the PADI wreck diving manual. They did only 4 dives over two days.

None of that is part of the PADI course. If you had it, your instructor went WAY beyond the curriculum.

I have been and continue to be critical of the PADI wreck diving course. I have suggested some new language to PADI for some of it. I was told it was excellent and would be included some time in the future. I have no idea when.

If you read through this whole thread, you will see me mention that laying line in a wreck is a pretty rare occurrence because there is no reason to do it in the overwhelming majority of cases. In my first posts, in fact, I suggested that is one of the biggest differences between cave diving and wreck diving. In cave diving, you always lay line. In wreck diving you have to learn to make good judgment as to when it is necessary to do so.

 

[modustollens]

None of that is part of the PADI course. If you had it, your instructor went WAY beyond the curriculum.

I have been and continue to be critical of the PADI wreck diving course. I have suggested some new language to PADI for some of it...
In cave diving, you always lay line. In wreck diving you have to learn to make good judgment as to when it is necessary to do so.

I read through the thread yes.

My training time: I was there to learn to dive into wrecks, not to be a PADI wreck diver, though I did get a PADI card for the sake of having something formalized, even if of limited training value; and I have used it when wanting to do wreck penetrations elsewhere for such is the nature of the beast when I travel and can't just go on my own: places want some sort of formal certification.

We finished everything PADI required for its card; then we got serious about diving into wrecks. The PADI course is way too short on emergency procedures for my tastes. It is for this reason that I sought out something better than what PADI requires. That course needs more than just new language. Following a line with a black mask for simulating a silt-out and doing lost line practice, without those skills tested out in water, PADI's wreck course is pretty lame. I wrote many places about their wreck dive training, asking them about those two items specifically as sort a test; any place that did not have them in their course was out.

If the standard for 'wreck diver' is taken to be the PADI curriculum, then I can see why a cave diver might make the sort of claims made earlier; but, not everyone is a PADI fanboy or takes it to be the standard, even if it is useful to have its cards given its market saturation rate.

There is a place for judgement on wrecks given how open some of the spaces can be, sure; but there is a big difference between a wreck dive and a penetration dive. Even if we assume someone had the judgement to employ a line at the necessary place, the PADI courses I looked at fail to cover what happens if something goes wrong after that point. That seems pretty important stuff to know if one decides it is necessary to employ a line.

Are there any cave courses without lost line drills or black-out line following training that still 'qualify' someone to use a line to go into a dark, confined, underwater space with no direct access to the surface?

Moreover, Chatterton's page, linked at the start, does not use only the term 'wreck diving'; he's more precise: he has an 'advanced' modifier; and he uses the term 'penetration diving'. So, in part, the question seems a bit imprecise given the Chatterton's page - which he says is a modifed TDI Advanced wreck course; even that is far better than PADI's offering.

And to think - I came here today to read about diving in and around Hong Kong...

 

[tursiops]

I read through the thread yes.

My training time: I was there to learn to dive into wrecks, not to be a PADI wreck diver, though I did get a PADI card for the sake of having something formalized, even if of limited training value; and I have used it when wanting to do wreck penetrations elsewhere for such is the nature of the beast when I travel and can't just go on my own: places want some sort of formal certification.

We finished everything PADI required for its card; then we got serious about diving into wrecks. The PADI course is way too short on emergency procedures for my tastes. It is for this reason that I sought out something better than what PADI requires. That course needs more than just new language. Following a line with a black mask for simulating a silt-out and doing lost line practice, without those skills tested out in water, PADI's wreck course is pretty lame. I wrote many places about their wreck dive training, asking them about those two items specifically as sort a test; any place that did not have them in their course was out.

If the standard for 'wreck diver' is taken to be the PADI curriculum, then I can see why a cave diver might make the sort of claims made earlier; but, not everyone is a PADI fanboy or takes it to be the standard, even if it is useful to have its cards given its market saturation rate.

There is a place for judgement on wrecks given how open some of the spaces can be, sure; but there is a big difference between a wreck dive and a penetration dive. Even if we assume someone had the judgement to employ a line at the necessary place, the PADI courses I looked at fail to cover what happens if something goes wrong after that point. That seems pretty important stuff to know if one decides it is necessary to employ a line.

Are there any cave courses without lost line drills or black-out line following training that still 'qualify' someone to use a line to go into a dark, confined, underwater space with no direct access to the surface?

Moreover, Chatterton's page, linked at the start, does not use only the term 'wreck diving'; he's more precise: he has an 'advanced' modifier; and he uses the term 'penetration diving'. So, in part, the question seems a bit imprecise given the Chatterton's page - which he says is a modifed TDI Advanced wreck course; even that is far better than PADI's offering.

And to think - I came here today to read about diving in and around Hong Kong...

You really need to understand the PADI wreck course is NOT a technical or advanced wreck course, and is NOT a penetration course. Yes, on dive 4, some minor penetration might be possible, but that is a far cry from the training that is needed to safely penetrate wrecks. It is kind of unfair to criticize a recreational, introductory wreck class for not being a technical, advanced, penetration wreck class. it is like having a McDonalds hamburger and then critcizing it for not being filet mignon with Bearnaise sauce.

 

[modustollens]

You really need to understand the PADI wreck course is NOT a technical or advanced wreck course, and is NOT a penetration course... that is a far cry from the training that is needed to safely penetrate wrecks.

That I understand; and I think many would agree with that last quoted statement.

Hence why I carefully chose to not simply take only that course. That said, it is also true to note that not all wreck divers are merely PADI wreck divers who have not also taken some specialized penetration training.

 

[DevonDiver]

You really need to understand the PADI wreck course is NOT a technical or advanced wreck course, and is NOT a penetration course. Yes, on dive 4, some minor penetration might be possible, but that is a far cry from the training that is needed to safely penetrate wrecks. It is kind of unfair to criticize a recreational, introductory wreck class for not being a technical, advanced, penetration wreck class. it is like having a McDonalds hamburger and then critcizing it for not being filet mignon with Bearnaise sauce.

Regardless of what the PADI wreck course actually is.....the course, according to PADI, does "qualify" for light-zone penetration; to the same parameters as their (and others) cavern courses.

If PADI specifically and clearly stated that Wreck Diver WASN'T a wreck penetration course then criticism would, indeed, be unfair.

The opposite is true... and that makes criticism very valid.

If the original thread question was "Does PADI wreck training equate to cave/cavern training" - then the answer is a definate 'NO!'.

But PADI wreck diver isn't the only wreck diver training available. It should NOT be used as an example of effective wreck penetration training, in either scope or standards. Frankly, as that course is commonly taught, it's an embarassment.

The only thing that's unfair is to compare the worst example from one side (i.e. PADI wreck) against the best example from the other side (i.e. full cave). Doing so creates a fallacy argument.

There IS wreck training available that equals cavern/cave in every respect. It seems that some in the cave community seek to wilfully ignore that fact, merely to salve ego and maintain a fictitious notion that cave must be superior to all, bar none.

 

[tursiops]

There IS wreck training available that equals cavern/cave in every respect.

What are the agencies/names of those courses, and are they commonly available?
Or, are you simply talking about the course YOU teach?

 

[DevonDiver]

If you read through this whole thread, you will see me mention that laying line in a wreck is a pretty rare occurrence because there is no reason to do it in the overwhelming majority of cases. In my first posts, in fact, I suggested that is one of the biggest differences between cave diving and wreck diving. In cave diving, you always lay line. In wreck diving you have to learn to make good judgment as to when it is necessary to do so.

This is what gives wreck training, and wreck instructors, a lame reputation.

Stone and steel are equally diver-impermeable materials.

Guideline is laid as a safeguard to ensure the capacity to exit an overhead environment in any circumstances; assuming that a wide spectrum of foreseeable and unforseeable contingencies can occur.

Dives, of any type, get dangerous when people assume they only need to mitigate against risks they are aware of. That mindset leaves divers vulnerable to any, and every, risk they cannot predict.

As a community, cave divers recognize uncompromising protocols that safeguard against human-factor failures in decision making and risk assessment/management. They always run line... and the prudence of that practice is accepted regardless of the cavern/cave undertaken.

In contrast, the wreck community accepts a muppet-show free-for-all approach, whereby any self-designated 'expert' can make or break the 'rules' as they see fit, or choose to interpret.

"Thats not an overhead environment penetration, that's a 'swim-through'..."

"That's a 'safe wreck', no guideline is necessary".

This is why cave divers don't respect wreck training, instructors and divers.

Sadly, its easy to tar everyone with the same brush.

 

[JohnnyC]

Until wreck diving has an industry-wide standard course of training, you should always default to the lowest common denominator. Sure, there are exceptions, bad cave instructors, etc., but the standards exist, and regardless of agency, they are all based on the same set of SOP's. Assuming that those standards are met, then without a doubt you can make a valid argument that a cave diver is better trained than a wreck diver.

You can't generalize (which is what the OP is asking) based on exceptions. Barring those exceptions, a to-standard trained cave diver will be better trained than a to-"standard" wreck diver for the simple reason that there is no industry-wide standard for wreck diving that equates at the same level as a cave course.

Now, if the industry were to create a standard for wreck training that is at parity with the standards for cave training, then we can make an accurate comparison. Until that exists, you have to go with what's out there. An exception like DevonDiver's wreck course would be a good starting point. I think any diver would benefit from that course. Unfortunately his course is not standard throughout the insdustry, so going to Joe Wrecksalot for a wreck course is a crapshoot. However, going to Joe Cavesalot will (again barring the exceptions) get you a course based on proven standards and procedures that equates to the minimum amount of skill necessary to survive in the overhead environment.

If you stand two divers next to each other and one says, "I'm a certified cave diver," and the other says, "I'm a certified wreck diver," you can absolutely make a concrete judgment about the cave diver, but the wreck diver is a complete unknown. Did he go to Andy and get solid training, or did he go to Joe Wrecksalot and shouldn't be trusted with a blunt stick, let alone a significant wreck penetration?

 

[DevonDiver]

What are the agencies/names of those courses, and are they commonly available?
Or, are you simply talking about the course YOU teach?

At a recreational level:

I had to supplement the PADI and SSI wreck courses extensively - as I wouldn't hand someone a certification card that'd routinely be accepted for light-zone penetration that wasn't equivalent to cavern diving (which imposes/permits the same extent of overhead penetration).

The recreational wreck penetration courses I provide/d through ANDI and RAID didnt need supplementation to raise them to an equivalence of cavern training.

As an example, I just finished teaching a RAID wreck course. They split recreational wreck into two levels: basic is non-penetration and advanced is light-zone penetration. I ran an advanced wreck course for penetration.

The RAID advanced wreck is recreational penetration, and differs from the higher level technical wreck penetration course.

We started the with a full day of theory, dry skills and confined water fundamental skills; inclusing buoyancy, trim and non-silting propulsion (frog, mod-flutter, helicopter and back kick).

RAID has specific standards on these fundamental skills, so we don't progress until they're met.

Dry drills included line laying and retrieval as a team, line following (inc blind), air-sharing long hose, entanglement, lost line and lost buddy, light and tactile signals.

Then we did a penetration preparatory dive, surveying the wreck with video and in-water notes for team assessment on penetration routes, hazards, navigation and contingencies.This was used as the basis for later penetration dive planning.

All dives used redundant gas systems and long-hose btw... in this case, backmount doubles.

Then we did a dive to rehearse all the drills and skills outside the wreck.This included black mask skills and a familiarity with real silt-out.

Then we did a session on penetration dive planning, including full gas management, turn distance, turn time and turn pressure. It included team division of roles and full contingency planning. There was a talk-through of the full dive, in phases, with signals.

That was followed by two penetration dives. I led the first, then student planned and led the second.

As my own standard, we did a further two student-led penetration dives to reinforce and refine the student's proficiency to what I interpret as 'mastery'. I rarely encounter a student that doesn't need those extra dives to achieve real competency. Some need even more.

 

[DevonDiver]

@JohnnyC

The 'industry' doesn't set standards for either cave or wreck. Agencies do...

In a tiny few countries, there are regulatory bodies for cave diving. These have authority only when land-owners choose to restrict access to caves... based on the regulatory body standards.

Those few countries; the USA, Australia and some European nations... have enough authority and appeal to shape the global outlook.

People tend to want certifications that'll allow them universal, global access.... so this determines what's deemed as acceptable training. Agencies have to conform to those standards or risk their qualifications being refused as unacceptable in some cases.

Access to wrecks cannot be regulated. The 'standards' are only applied by dive operators, or the divers themselves. Hence the muppet-show free-for-all situation we see in effect.

Without possible regulation on wreck penetration, it shouldn't surprise anyone that some agencies, operators, instructors and wreck divers gravitate to the absolute bare minimum, woefully insufficient, level of training and procedures. Greed, low ethics, ignorance, complacency and just plain laziness all contribute to that predictable state of affairs.

It's a community mindset issue, not an imposition of standards issue.

Cave divers are conditioned to accept and apply prudent standards and procedures.

In contrast, wreck divers get role-modelled by lame wreck instructors who say stuff like; "most wrecks don't require guidelines".

Mindset...

Crap perpetuates crap.