Unless it’s **** training.
Do cave divers need wreck training?
- Thread starter CAPTAIN SINBAD
- Start date
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
Unless it’s **** training.
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
No, the one I posted earlier.
Here are a few comments from a diver who did cave training in Florida with an NSS-CDS instructor, after having done technical wreck penetration training in the Philippines -- not with DevonDiver, but in some of the same Subic Bay wrecks, with a highly respected instructor-trainer with a whole lot of experience in wrecks around the Pacific and Indian Oceans (and was cave trained by Tom Mount, too, IIRC).
I don't know what technical wreck penetration courses are like in the States, but mine was quite demanding. I think it was 4 days' duration, **for divers who were already trained and certified open water technical divers (AN/DP, Tec Deep, etc.) with adequate skills.** Divers who weren't already *well beyond* the cavern diver level of buoyancy control, trim, propulsion techniques, gas planning, gas switching, etc., could expect a lengthier course.
Laying and dealing with line was a major focus of the course; progressive penetration was not even considered, except as a historical curiosity. There was some discussion of "swim-throughs" vs "penetrations" and when does one really need to lay a line, which of course should be part of a wreck course, as discussed in posts above.
I'd say that except for gaps/jumps, circuits and traverses, and cookies and arrows (discussed, but not used), the wreck course I took covered as much as my cave course (not including the geology stuff, of course).
The wreck course covered some important stuff one won't get in a Florida cave course, such as: when is it OK to stage deco bottles outside the wreck, vs when to take them in with you? What does metal fatigue under water look like (i.e., will the ceiling collapse on me)? What about scorpionfish or stonefish if you're silted out and feeling around for a lost line? What about all those sharp, point, pokey, snaggly, rusty, cutty, tangly, wonderful but deadly things that are part of what make wrecks so interesting?
Not planned by the instructor, but a perfect training experience, was when we had put a wrap or a placement on a big metal thingy attached to the wall of a wreck. As we were exiting, the very slightest pull on the line as we reeled it up was enough to bring the whole thing crashing down, falling off the wall and landing in a mess of silt … rust, and Mt Pinatubo's fine volcanic ash, and whatever other silt was there billowed up and viz dropped to about 2 inches, maximum. And the line out was buried under that fallen hunk of rusty, jagged metal, which was between us and the exit. We were as calm as could be, followed the protocols according to our training over the previous few days, and exited without even raising our SAC rates. We had already done plenty of no-viz drills, including gas sharing through restrictions in zero viz, etc.
It was good training.
There were passages in the wreck of the USS New York, by the way, that made Ginnie Springs' Mud Tunnel seem like a piece of cake. And I did it in backmount. The SM stuff is even tighter, rustier, siltier, more jagged, more snaggly, and over all nastier and deadlier … and of course very interesting to passionate wreck divers.
So I guess it depends on the instructor, on how far beyond the agency minimums he or she goes, and on the wrecks available for training … but in my experience, a good technical wreck course--with students starting with tec diver skills already above and beyond cavern diver--can and should be at least as demanding and rewarding as a full cave course.
Just my $0.02
I don't know what technical wreck penetration courses are like in the States, but mine was quite demanding. I think it was 4 days' duration, **for divers who were already trained and certified open water technical divers (AN/DP, Tec Deep, etc.) with adequate skills.** Divers who weren't already *well beyond* the cavern diver level of buoyancy control, trim, propulsion techniques, gas planning, gas switching, etc., could expect a lengthier course.
Laying and dealing with line was a major focus of the course; progressive penetration was not even considered, except as a historical curiosity. There was some discussion of "swim-throughs" vs "penetrations" and when does one really need to lay a line, which of course should be part of a wreck course, as discussed in posts above.
I'd say that except for gaps/jumps, circuits and traverses, and cookies and arrows (discussed, but not used), the wreck course I took covered as much as my cave course (not including the geology stuff, of course).
The wreck course covered some important stuff one won't get in a Florida cave course, such as: when is it OK to stage deco bottles outside the wreck, vs when to take them in with you? What does metal fatigue under water look like (i.e., will the ceiling collapse on me)? What about scorpionfish or stonefish if you're silted out and feeling around for a lost line? What about all those sharp, point, pokey, snaggly, rusty, cutty, tangly, wonderful but deadly things that are part of what make wrecks so interesting?
Not planned by the instructor, but a perfect training experience, was when we had put a wrap or a placement on a big metal thingy attached to the wall of a wreck. As we were exiting, the very slightest pull on the line as we reeled it up was enough to bring the whole thing crashing down, falling off the wall and landing in a mess of silt … rust, and Mt Pinatubo's fine volcanic ash, and whatever other silt was there billowed up and viz dropped to about 2 inches, maximum. And the line out was buried under that fallen hunk of rusty, jagged metal, which was between us and the exit. We were as calm as could be, followed the protocols according to our training over the previous few days, and exited without even raising our SAC rates. We had already done plenty of no-viz drills, including gas sharing through restrictions in zero viz, etc.
It was good training.
There were passages in the wreck of the USS New York, by the way, that made Ginnie Springs' Mud Tunnel seem like a piece of cake. And I did it in backmount. The SM stuff is even tighter, rustier, siltier, more jagged, more snaggly, and over all nastier and deadlier … and of course very interesting to passionate wreck divers.
So I guess it depends on the instructor, on how far beyond the agency minimums he or she goes, and on the wrecks available for training … but in my experience, a good technical wreck course--with students starting with tec diver skills already above and beyond cavern diver--can and should be at least as demanding and rewarding as a full cave course.
Just my $0.02
Last edited:
- Messages
- 93,487
- Reaction score
- 91,862
- Location
- On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
From my perspective as someone who's taken both wreck and cave training, the diving skills are similar, but some of the techniques are different ... as is the mindset.
I took my wreck training first ... which was considerably more than what some here have mentioned. But where I live most of the wrecks are quite deep ... in the 160-300 foot range. So if you're going to be considering wreck training, then you will also need to be taking some trimix classes. In my case, those were offered as part of the "wreck" training I received. YMMV - a lot of it depends on what kind of wrecks you're planning to dive on.
After about three years of wreck diving I decided to go take a cave class in Florida with Jim Wyatt. I figured with all my previous experience ... more than 100 wreck dives down to about 275 feet ... I could just do the eight-day zero to hero class. After all ... the skills are similar, right?
Nope ... didn't make it ... only got as far as Apprentice Hero on that first attempt. I doubt Jim would recall, but most of my mistakes were less related to diving skills than mental errors. Many were things I wouldn't have had to even give any thought to in a wreck ... and in some cases gave insufficient thought to in the cave. So I had to dive at the apprentice level for a while till I found my cave mojo and got my head into that particular environment.
By the same token, much of my wreck training focused on things I wouldn't normally need to worry about in a cave ... like looking up to see what's above you. In a cave, it's generally rock. In a wreck it could be rustcicles, which would explode as soon as your bubbles disturbed them and emulsify in the water. Or it could be cables or other projections that could be an entanglement or puncture hazard. It could be walls, ceiling panels, or other objects that deteriorate over time (in some cases, not much time) that can fall on you, or can simply move around and make whatever room you're in look unfamiliar ... or even block the exit you were planning to use. Wrecks, like caves, generally come with maps you can use to plan your dive ... unless you're lucky enough to be exploring one that hasn't been mapped yet. But unlike a cave, wrecks can and do "reconfigure" as their structure deteriorates. In salt water, this can occur rather faster than some people might realize ... we've got some prepared wrecks up here that have been down less than 25 years that are showing significant signs of deterioration, and some of the older wrecks are no longer even penetrable, although they were 15 or 20 years ago.
I think it's unrealistic to suggest that training for one discipline somehow makes you "qualified" to dive the other. Sure, some people could probably pull it off without difficulty. But it's a great way to go into a dive with confidence you don't deserve ... or ignorance sufficient to put you in a bad circumstance.
Even the so-called "similarities" have some differences. Tying line, for example, is different ... not in terms of running the reel or tying it off, but more so in terms of choosing good tie-off locations. That was one of the mental errors I made in cave training, having come into it with the perspective of doing tie-offs inside of wrecks. My technique was fine ... it was my judgment that needed some work.
Neither training is "better" ... that depends entirely on who you're taking your training from and how you plan to apply it. But the reality is that if you want to dive both wrecks and caves, the best approach is to take classes in both disciplines. Many of the skills are transferrable, but the manner in which you apply them and the way you manage risks is sufficiently different that it'd be best not to assume that training for one will sufficiently prepare you for the other. Both are expensive endeavors ... training is the last thing you should be considering cheaping out on.
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
I took my wreck training first ... which was considerably more than what some here have mentioned. But where I live most of the wrecks are quite deep ... in the 160-300 foot range. So if you're going to be considering wreck training, then you will also need to be taking some trimix classes. In my case, those were offered as part of the "wreck" training I received. YMMV - a lot of it depends on what kind of wrecks you're planning to dive on.
After about three years of wreck diving I decided to go take a cave class in Florida with Jim Wyatt. I figured with all my previous experience ... more than 100 wreck dives down to about 275 feet ... I could just do the eight-day zero to hero class. After all ... the skills are similar, right?
Nope ... didn't make it ... only got as far as Apprentice Hero on that first attempt. I doubt Jim would recall, but most of my mistakes were less related to diving skills than mental errors. Many were things I wouldn't have had to even give any thought to in a wreck ... and in some cases gave insufficient thought to in the cave. So I had to dive at the apprentice level for a while till I found my cave mojo and got my head into that particular environment.
By the same token, much of my wreck training focused on things I wouldn't normally need to worry about in a cave ... like looking up to see what's above you. In a cave, it's generally rock. In a wreck it could be rustcicles, which would explode as soon as your bubbles disturbed them and emulsify in the water. Or it could be cables or other projections that could be an entanglement or puncture hazard. It could be walls, ceiling panels, or other objects that deteriorate over time (in some cases, not much time) that can fall on you, or can simply move around and make whatever room you're in look unfamiliar ... or even block the exit you were planning to use. Wrecks, like caves, generally come with maps you can use to plan your dive ... unless you're lucky enough to be exploring one that hasn't been mapped yet. But unlike a cave, wrecks can and do "reconfigure" as their structure deteriorates. In salt water, this can occur rather faster than some people might realize ... we've got some prepared wrecks up here that have been down less than 25 years that are showing significant signs of deterioration, and some of the older wrecks are no longer even penetrable, although they were 15 or 20 years ago.
I think it's unrealistic to suggest that training for one discipline somehow makes you "qualified" to dive the other. Sure, some people could probably pull it off without difficulty. But it's a great way to go into a dive with confidence you don't deserve ... or ignorance sufficient to put you in a bad circumstance.
Even the so-called "similarities" have some differences. Tying line, for example, is different ... not in terms of running the reel or tying it off, but more so in terms of choosing good tie-off locations. That was one of the mental errors I made in cave training, having come into it with the perspective of doing tie-offs inside of wrecks. My technique was fine ... it was my judgment that needed some work.
Neither training is "better" ... that depends entirely on who you're taking your training from and how you plan to apply it. But the reality is that if you want to dive both wrecks and caves, the best approach is to take classes in both disciplines. Many of the skills are transferrable, but the manner in which you apply them and the way you manage risks is sufficiently different that it'd be best not to assume that training for one will sufficiently prepare you for the other. Both are expensive endeavors ... training is the last thing you should be considering cheaping out on.
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
- Messages
- 93,487
- Reaction score
- 91,862
- Location
- On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
... I believe you meant to say desecrating ... the word you used means to remove moisture from them, which would be very difficult in an underwater environment ...
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Ballde
New
I personally think that caves and wreks should have some sort of knowledge or difficulty level (somthsome like rock climbing grades) but do keep in mind I'm just a regular open water diver with 0 cave or wreck diving but from reading the post and more I think the rating ayssys would be great because if I just want to dive let's say a level 1 wreck I can probably just get a simpled sorta waterd down version of the full ob wreck diving so I can go diving in those level 1 wreck and cave diving would go for the same but the knowledge and skills from both would transfer been this is also good because new wreck divers can no if there required we're have enough skills to do the dive in almost eliminate the wonder if you are good enough to do it
- Messages
- 93,487
- Reaction score
- 91,862
- Location
- On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
Yup...autocorrupt strikes again.
- Messages
- 93,487
- Reaction score
- 91,862
- Location
- On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
modustollens
Contributor
Both cave and wreck, at least penetrative wreck diving, are both overhead environments, and in so far as this is the case, there will be shared concepts and skills. It is important to note that not all wreck courses are penetrative; or this is merely an option. More on this later...
I took some wreck training. We read the PADI manual and I got a PADI card; it is pretty lacking that manual; but, sometimes having a card is useful when traveling and I did use this card to do penetrative wreck dives in other places.
But, that PADI manual was not the only book we read: all the other manuals we used were cave diving manuals. Laying and following line, lost line drills, blacked-out mask practice, air sharing while moving in confined space with a long hose, etc., all from books written for cave divers. We dove many different wrecks while practicing these skills. We watched videos like this:
(notice, the guy is in an overhead environment, albeit a cave).
There is, then, a Venn diagram to be drawn with an intersecting zone; and, some of the most important and core concepts and skills for both overhead environments are in that intersecting zone. Maybe someone could draw up a chart; this will be more useful than bleating about the different rubber stamps one can get.
I did not just sign up with the first dive shop advertising wreck diving and four wreck dives. I carefully researched who I was going to train with and spent a few weeks with the guy. And, at times, especially at the start, it was good and scary. But, after getting a card, and more importantly, a lot of supervised experience, I was much calmer and more proficient.
I was, a year or so later, diving a wreck while on holiday. There was a wreck dive course going on at that time and the students were on the same boat. I was watching and chatting with the students over the course of a couple days:
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.
On the last dive of their course there was an optional penetration dive using a finger spool for a line; line practice was just before the dive, on land. Only one of the students was willing to go into the wreck (and this wreck was purposely sunk, upright and relatively new). There was only one finger spool taken inside. So, no backup or tiny spool for a lost line drill. The line, which had a bolt-snap tied on the end, was simply looped through, but not several times around, one of the ship's rusty and crusty stair handles outside the hatch and then clipped back onto itself using the bolt snap. The line was so slack that it both (1) wobbled to and fro in the current and (2) was pulled and yanked and slid around every time the diver moved, creating a risk of cutting the line against the rusty, crusty metal. There was no primary wrap nor a secondary wrap. During the course, the students only dove that same, 'sanitized' wreck; but, to be fair, that was the only one in the area (and this alone would be a sufficient reason, for me at least, to not do a wreck diving course in this place).
That was certainly not how I was trained; I am certain that had I tied a line like that during my training I would have had my ass chewed off - and I was certainly chastised during my training time on a few other occasions - and rightly so too. But, at the end of it, those students had the same 'qualification' card as I, even the students who opted not to go into the wreck and have never run a line before.
So, if there are many 'wreck' dive courses like the one I observed - and I suspect that is more the norm than not from the research I did before deciding where I would train - I could certainly see the argument against the symmetry of skills, in general; but, 'in general' is just that for there are always outliers.
Wreck diving courses are both popular and occur almost everywhere too; even in places with maybe 1 or 2 tiny wrecks. So, there are certainly more wreck divers than cave divers; and this might skew the interpretation of the question of the thread, especially when the content of wreck courses are often not instructed by wreck diving fanatics with a tonne of experience doing overhead or penetrative wreck diving. In other words, 'wreck diver' has a far wider meaning than 'cave diver.' Unless very careful about who one trains one, a wreck course may contain almost none of the core elements required for safe overhead diving, whether that be either cave or wreck diving. Indeed, at the place I am writing about above where I observed the wreck course, the instructor of that course had himself not taken any advanced overhead diver training and had only done penetration dives on that one wreck in that one place since he started teaching the wreck diving course. In other words, he had never entered a wreck with a line prior to teaching that course. I dove with him during my time there and we even did a few penetration dives on that wreck together just for fun. But I myself would not have chosen him to train with him.
I was researching and looking for a fellow to train with for cave diving; but that plan fell through given a change in my job situation. I really don't care about agencies, dive shops with good reviews or certification cards, though the later are useful and necessary to get a ride on a boat sometimes. I primarily look for a mentor with an obvious track record of experience doing what he or she is claiming he can teach me to do and from whom I can gain some experience in that new environment and learn about the quirks of that environment which are not in the intersection zone in the overhead environment Venn diagram. I would think that penetrative wreck diving specialists, and not the mere padi 'wreck diver', are not as unprepared as the bravado of the cave divers might like to think; though, it is more than likely for the standard wreck diver spat out on sort of course I observed to be unprepared. Indeed, some of the cave dives I have viewed online look a lot easier to pass through than some of the rusty, wire-strewn, upside-down and blown-up wrecks I have swam into.
If one is trapped in a silted-out, dark wet hole without a line, sufficient gas, or redundant apparatus, the grim reaper cares not if it is a cave or a wreck.
I took some wreck training. We read the PADI manual and I got a PADI card; it is pretty lacking that manual; but, sometimes having a card is useful when traveling and I did use this card to do penetrative wreck dives in other places.
But, that PADI manual was not the only book we read: all the other manuals we used were cave diving manuals. Laying and following line, lost line drills, blacked-out mask practice, air sharing while moving in confined space with a long hose, etc., all from books written for cave divers. We dove many different wrecks while practicing these skills. We watched videos like this:
(notice, the guy is in an overhead environment, albeit a cave).
There is, then, a Venn diagram to be drawn with an intersecting zone; and, some of the most important and core concepts and skills for both overhead environments are in that intersecting zone. Maybe someone could draw up a chart; this will be more useful than bleating about the different rubber stamps one can get.
I did not just sign up with the first dive shop advertising wreck diving and four wreck dives. I carefully researched who I was going to train with and spent a few weeks with the guy. And, at times, especially at the start, it was good and scary. But, after getting a card, and more importantly, a lot of supervised experience, I was much calmer and more proficient.
I was, a year or so later, diving a wreck while on holiday. There was a wreck dive course going on at that time and the students were on the same boat. I was watching and chatting with the students over the course of a couple days:
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.
On the last dive of their course there was an optional penetration dive using a finger spool for a line; line practice was just before the dive, on land. Only one of the students was willing to go into the wreck (and this wreck was purposely sunk, upright and relatively new). There was only one finger spool taken inside. So, no backup or tiny spool for a lost line drill. The line, which had a bolt-snap tied on the end, was simply looped through, but not several times around, one of the ship's rusty and crusty stair handles outside the hatch and then clipped back onto itself using the bolt snap. The line was so slack that it both (1) wobbled to and fro in the current and (2) was pulled and yanked and slid around every time the diver moved, creating a risk of cutting the line against the rusty, crusty metal. There was no primary wrap nor a secondary wrap. During the course, the students only dove that same, 'sanitized' wreck; but, to be fair, that was the only one in the area (and this alone would be a sufficient reason, for me at least, to not do a wreck diving course in this place).
That was certainly not how I was trained; I am certain that had I tied a line like that during my training I would have had my ass chewed off - and I was certainly chastised during my training time on a few other occasions - and rightly so too. But, at the end of it, those students had the same 'qualification' card as I, even the students who opted not to go into the wreck and have never run a line before.
So, if there are many 'wreck' dive courses like the one I observed - and I suspect that is more the norm than not from the research I did before deciding where I would train - I could certainly see the argument against the symmetry of skills, in general; but, 'in general' is just that for there are always outliers.
Wreck diving courses are both popular and occur almost everywhere too; even in places with maybe 1 or 2 tiny wrecks. So, there are certainly more wreck divers than cave divers; and this might skew the interpretation of the question of the thread, especially when the content of wreck courses are often not instructed by wreck diving fanatics with a tonne of experience doing overhead or penetrative wreck diving. In other words, 'wreck diver' has a far wider meaning than 'cave diver.' Unless very careful about who one trains one, a wreck course may contain almost none of the core elements required for safe overhead diving, whether that be either cave or wreck diving. Indeed, at the place I am writing about above where I observed the wreck course, the instructor of that course had himself not taken any advanced overhead diver training and had only done penetration dives on that one wreck in that one place since he started teaching the wreck diving course. In other words, he had never entered a wreck with a line prior to teaching that course. I dove with him during my time there and we even did a few penetration dives on that wreck together just for fun. But I myself would not have chosen him to train with him.
I was researching and looking for a fellow to train with for cave diving; but that plan fell through given a change in my job situation. I really don't care about agencies, dive shops with good reviews or certification cards, though the later are useful and necessary to get a ride on a boat sometimes. I primarily look for a mentor with an obvious track record of experience doing what he or she is claiming he can teach me to do and from whom I can gain some experience in that new environment and learn about the quirks of that environment which are not in the intersection zone in the overhead environment Venn diagram. I would think that penetrative wreck diving specialists, and not the mere padi 'wreck diver', are not as unprepared as the bravado of the cave divers might like to think; though, it is more than likely for the standard wreck diver spat out on sort of course I observed to be unprepared. Indeed, some of the cave dives I have viewed online look a lot easier to pass through than some of the rusty, wire-strewn, upside-down and blown-up wrecks I have swam into.
If one is trapped in a silted-out, dark wet hole without a line, sufficient gas, or redundant apparatus, the grim reaper cares not if it is a cave or a wreck.
Last edited:
Similar threads
