Do cave divers need wreck training?

[Germie]

A funny true story happened to me: I was on a liveaboard in Thailand (recreational diving) and was doing 'boon soon wreck' solo. The briefing was: No penetretation unless you are full cave trained.
They got angry when they saw me with spools in that (open) wreck.
So here they stated cavediving means you can penetrate wrecks. Or did they mention it different?
I still do my wreckpenetrations with my cave skills, but I think they will never mention this again in a briefing (they did not know I had finished my cave training 5 days before). So they could not get angry at me.

ok, I had to write this funny story.

Back ontopic. There are agencies where you just need full cave and pay a fee to become cavern instructor. With other agencies you have to do a real instructor course.
Endquality can be same, but the way to become cavern instructor is different. If you have done 20 years ago full cave, never dove caves again and never practised running lines, and now think I pay the fee, then you can teach cavern. Is that different from a wreckinstructor without experience?
I had to save my own wreckinstructor (he ran out of air, a story I have write here before, group pressure). Proper line/reel/spool handling I learned in my cave course. Since then I use it in wrecks as well.

 

[Berry Ke]

No assumptions are required, and your second claim is false. There are a tonne of books on the subject. It is not difficult to correlate the skills and procedures used for overhead environments, whether they be steel or rock.

It is also easy to see that the PADI wreck course is far from sufficient for overhead environment diving. But, not all 'wreck diving' instructors use that standard. As Boulder John said, all cave diving is penetrative and overhead and a line is always used; but not all wreck diving or training is. But from the claim that not all wreck dive training is for penetrative, overhead diving using a line, it does not follow that there does not exist some wreck dive training that is specifically for penetrative, overhead environments where a line would always be used. The procedures and skills for the two different environments converge or overlap in so far as both are overhead environments.

Indeed, my wreck penetration dive training used cave diving manuals (e.g. https://www.gue.com/files/page_images/expeditions/Mexico/guideline3.pdf); this is one of many we used - there were at least 5 others manuals written for 'cave' diving that we read for that training. And, if I were to sign up for a cave-class, I would likely have read the books that course would use and trained to employ the skills and procedures contained therein - like this one: Book - Cave Diving Communications - NSS CDS).

None of the overlapping skills imply that there are not specific or unique hazards to different types of overhead environments; a diver should research and learn about these at the least and, ideally, find a mentor to help guide one's experience in novel environments. Hence the conclusion is obvious.

I really don't know what you're talking about. Is it about a course you followed from Devon? Another course? So because they use books from another training both Trainings are quality wise equally? And you can 'easily' deduct quality of a training by the procedures that are being used/training.
Dude that's the most pathetic thing I heard all day. Every car uses the same thing techniques and every driving instructor teaches the same principles and procedures.. So every training is quality wise equal? What a joke...

 

[DevonDiver]

You assume that your wreck training equals full cave training standards, all without ever having done one bit of cave training meeting general standards..

Ok, let's clear up this issue of 'assumptions'.

I was qualified in Technical Wreck and Advanced Overhead Sidemount by an Instructor-Training-Director who was qualified to train instructor-trainers to CCR Advanced Trimix Cave levels.

He stated, I quote, that technical wreck (the syllabus I was trained to teach) was a direct equivent to full cave. Same skills, sames proficiencies, same protoocols. Only the environmental factors differed.

So, we can drop the set assumptions that soneone needs to "hold the card" to have a valid opinion or understanding of something.

I spent over six years being mentored by that CCR Advanced Trimix Cave instructor-trainer-trainer. The only reason I'm not a cave instructor years ago is because there's no caves here (people, including myself, have been looking for decades).

.. people are going to question you.. And fairly right... you are so convinced your trainings meets full cave trainings... even I can relate to cave divers and other people being repulsed by your loudmouthing...

So, I'm rude for explaining my relative experience.... but i can't be considered informed without demonstrating relative experience?

Your comments illustrate exactly WHY it's important for people to qualify their opinions and relative qualifications and experience. That's a pretty standard thing in all manner of debates.

Its not considered boasting, its merely a part of validating an argument....how informed an opinion may be, or how authoritative a statement is.

It's especially important in this debate context, because there's been more than a few instances of people trying to disqualify informed opinions via attacking the poster (as you've illustrated).... which is basically just a derivation of an ad hominem attack.

"You don't have a right to an opinion, because you don't hold a cave card. Therefore, I win".

Then, having forced the individual to qualify the relevance of their experience and education, attack them for "arrogance and boasting".

It's pretty low, really.

You'll notice that whilst refuting your post, I have at no time tried to attack or undermine you personally, or disqualify your opinion.

 

[modustollens]

So because they use books from another training both Trainings are quality wise equally? And you can 'easily' deduct quality of a training by the procedures that are being used/training.
Dude that's the most pathetic thing I heard all day. Every car uses the same thing techniques and every driving instructor teaches the same principles and procedures.. So every training is quality wise equal? What a joke...

You need to read more carefully so you won't misunderstand in a pathetically oversimplified way or make invalid deductions:

I am not making this claim: "So because they use books from another training both Trainings are quality wise equally?" This is your illogical step, which is the real joke here.

At no time in that post did I speak about the quality of a course. I wrote only about the content of a course; content is easy to correlate: simply look at the list of subjects. The content for my wreck course, at least in so far as dealing with line, was the same. What evidence do I have for that? The fact that the resources were the same, namely, the same books, books published by a cave agency, for example. I cited that evidence.

And, moreover, if you read my earlier post, you would have read that I earlier spoke of both the content and the quality of a course I observed: the PADI course I observed did not use any material other than the lame PADI manual. And, when I observed the manner in which the student was instructed to secure a line, the quality of instruction was low for the line was not tied according to the standards given in the cave-based line-guide book I placed a link to above: it was loosely flowing in the current, rubbing against rusty metal, with neither a primary or secondary wrap - only a loop and bolt snap back onto the line held the line in place.

There is no immediate inference from the content of a class to the quality of the instruction. They are distinct and separate criteria that, when amalgamated together, jointly determine the value of a course; if either one of these criteria are lacking, then there is a problem. It is a straw-man to claim that my position is otherwise.

 

[kensuf]

This thread has nothing to do with whether or not cave divers need wreck training. I think that question was answered back on page 2 or 3. Maybe we can start a new thread, "Do wreck divers need wreck training"?

 

[Sliver]

My $0.02..

Me = cave rebreather 100m...titles titles titles...diver - seems this needs to be stated before an opinion.

To the OP. IMHO, Yes wreck training is a good idea. This was stated by a few qualified to do so including JC (quoted), DD et al.

This thread has a lot of back and forth on penetration but there is a lot else to consider. Boat, mooring line, etiquette, lost boat etc +++are just a few. Wreck divers deal with a different set of logistics and protocols from land based caves and this is an important consideration and I am sure is covered by top level instructors like DevonDiver (never met the man but he is known and recommended - top end is a small community). All of these compound exponentially when you add depth.

Diving, particularly in the deep ocean, is not a cave. The logistics, planning and contingencies etc are totally different. Neither cave nor deep ocean wreck is more ‘technical’, it is different and this needs to be understood before jumping in.

Been diving in caves since 2000 and 100m+ is routine in a cave or on a new deep reef but...to go on a wreck diving trip/expedition in the 80-120m range I feel is is appropriate to try to fit in some guidance and training from someone like DevonDiver (you can expect an email) to get prepared. Just needs to be on a breather.

That’s my two pence.

 

[DevonDiver]

Maybe we can start a new thread, "Do wreck divers need wreck training"?

^ 5-stars! :-D

 

[ofg-1]

In my case, no I do not need wreck training. My physician has instructed me to strictly limit my salt intake, and as such, I will not be diving in salted water for fear of accidental ingestion, or absorption. It might also necessitate cleaning of my equipment.

 

[boulderjohn]

In my case, no I do not need wreck training. My physician has instructed me to strictly limit my salt intake, and as such, I will not be diving in salted water for fear of accidental ingestion, or absorption. It might also necessitate cleaning of my equipment.

Sounds like you need to check out the wrecks in the Great Lakes.

 

[kelemvor]

It just sounds like you had ****** wreck training then.

As I said, there's a little bit of space outside 'mercia ... (that may surprise some)... and practices can vary greatly.

I get the impression that there's some sigificant variation in wreck versus cave training quality IN AMERICA ... I dont see that difference pronounced in other regions.

Why is American wreck training so dismal (as people seem to suggest)?

I'lI note that comparison has to be between full cave and TECHNICAL wreck. Obviously mainstream agency 'wreck diver' courses dont amount to much.... I wouldn't even class them as true penetration courses (even light zone only).

Judging by the description of your website, technical wreck is quite weak compared to a full cave. In this case, I'm comparing it to the NSS/CDS standards. Without getting into the nitty gritty, your course is four days and only six dives. NSSCDS cave is 8 days and 16 dives. Maybe students in your area just absorb training that much better?

Obviously, advanced classes like "rebreather cave" or "trimix cave" or "advanced wreck" are not included in this simple comparison.

That said, I think the idea of comparing cave vs wreck courses is questionable at best. In my opinion, a cave diver should take a wreck course before penetrating wrecks. A wreck diver should take a cave course before penetrating caves. Unfortunately, the cost for this level of training is almost as extreme as the dives themselves...