Do cave divers need wreck training?

[boulderjohn]

NSSCDS cave is 8 days and 16 dives.

That is a minimum. That minimum time assumes you will do extra training dives between each of the 4 levels. Going straight through the course as describes can only be done by someone entering the course with significant experience in technical diving outside of caves.

 

[KenGordon]

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.

I agree with the above. Nobody answered my request for a risk assessment for a 20m bimble in the Channel. I am guessing that is because it is outside of the experience of most of the posters here. So a dive which might be appropriate for a beginner tagging along with someone experienced might be full of unpleasant surprises for divers who have not done anything similar. Unknown unknowns and all that.

 

[kelemvor]

That is a minimum. That minimum time assumes you will do extra training dives between each of the 4 levels. Going straight through the course as describes can only be done by someone entering the course with significant experience in technical diving outside of caves.

Yep, I fully understand. I was just quoting minimums as listed, since it was all that was necessary to make my point.

 

[DevonDiver]

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.

Counting days is overly simplistic.

It's important to remember that cave and wreck curriculum progresses differently.

Cave is a linear course progression, wheras wreck progresses in tandem with technical decompression training.

Recreational divers cannot enrol on a technical wreck course. It is the preserve of experienced technical divers.

They will begin training with at least 12 technical training dives under their belt; in which they will have mastered full technical equipment, procedures, protocols and accelerated decompression to extended range level, often with trimix also.

Technical Wreck only has to teach penetration specific proficiencies, hence the lower minimum dive/day requirement.

Using my RAID system as an example, the total training necessary would encompass:

• Basic Wreck - 1 day/2 dives
• Advanced Wreck - 4 days/6 dives
• Deco50 - 8 days/12 dives
• Technical Wreck - 4 days/6 dives

The total commitment in training time and dives would be 17 days/26 dives.

Those are, of course, my minimum requirements. As progression through the syllabus is entirely performance determined, it's not unusual for remedial days/dives to be necessary.

Again, using RAID as the example, students learn proper buoyancy, trim and propulsion; including helicopter turn, mod-flutter, frog and back kick, from OW onwards. This should be in place as a prerequisite for any wreck and tech training. If they are from an agency that doesn't develop those fundamental prerequisite proficiencies then there'd be substantial extra training needed.

Maybe students in your area just absorb training that much better?

They certainly seem motivated to work hard and devote the time and effort necessary to reach very good standards. This is precisely what makes my work so satisfying.

My students primarily travel to the Philippines to attend training from the USA, Europe and Australia, so it's not a regional issue. Most are professionals, with a high ratio from the fields of IT, aviation, serving or ex-military and business executives.

About 1/3rd are also divemasters, instructors or instructor-trainers. They come from a variety of agencies, including some holding GUE and UTD qualifications. I have taught full cave, and above, qualified divers both wreck and sidemount.

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.

I agree completely. The environmental differences are significant enough to justify dedicated training.

Anyone diving at that level should have enough risk prudence to recognize the benefit of that.

Nonetheless, there will always be those who think they're paying for 'licenses' to be allowed to do specific diving activies: Rather than training, knowledge and experience.

For them, there'll always be a strong temptation to justify not doing relevant courses, if access to that level of diving isn't otherwise restricted or regulated.

 

[Coztick]

Technical wreck, in penetration terms, merely takes the diver beyond the light zone. There is vast scope and complexity beyond that threshold.

Just as with cave, there are many environmental, equipment and procedural skillsets that need to be added if further challenges are to be undertaken.

Cave is more regulated... so those progressive proficiencies are better reflected in a standardised syllabus.

However, the same is available for wreck, but its much more niche and the instructors offering it are far fewer.

I'll give the example of the ANDI Advanced Sidemount course, which focuses on stage cylinder use and the passage of the most extreme restrictions. In essence it's about wriggling through tiny claustrophobic areas in zero viz dragging and pushing 4-6 tanks. The prerequisites for that course are either Full Cave or Technical Wreck ..

Example: www.deeptecdiver.com/sidemounttraining-advanced-sidemount-bruce-konefe/

Seems like you're saying technical wreck would be akin to an intro to cave and would need to be followed by more advanced training by only highly skilled and possibly hard to find wreck instructors to convey the same skillset as would be expected in every full cave course.

Edit...Answered in last post while i asked.

 

[DevonDiver]

Seems like you're saying technical wreck would be akin to an intro to cave and would need to be followed by more advanced training by only highly skilled and possibly hard to find wreck instructors to convey the same skillset as would be expected in every full cave course.

Edit...Answered in last post while i asked.

I'd suggest that a course like the RAID Advanced Wreck more closely matched the intro-to-cave level.

That's certainly where I model it.

I taught that last week. My student completed the course over 6 days. Two of those days were focused on building fundamental skills. All training was completed in backmount doubles.

It is still a recreational level course though - penetration is only within the light zone, 40m linear and 1/3rds gas.

This (below) is my student practicing guideline skills outside of the wreck on dive #3. After this photo we did long-hose air-sharing along the line, then black mask line drills.

We did four 1-hour penetration dives on the following two days, which included zero viz demonstration, lost line, lost buddy and entanglement.

 

[oldschoolto]

Pete, You are going to sit there with a straight face and say that there is no back biting and politics in cave diving? That all ( every single cave instructor ) is the same as the next and no matter what guy trains you.. it's the same.. It's all like a cookie cutter.. Every diver with a cave card is as good as the next.. The best of the best..

I got no dog in this thread.. I just don't buy your inflatable heads... You guys seem to run out of air a lot for being so great...

Jim...

 

[boulderjohn]

ou guys seem to run out of air a lot for being so great...

When it happens, you sure hear about it.

There used to be a web page that tracked cave diving fatalities world wide. Unfortunately, I can no longer find it. For quite a few years, it came to a couple per year world-wide, and that included deaths due to health issues, decompression sickness, etc. It also included deaths of people who had no cave training, and that usually comprised about half of the total fatalities, even though few people with no training go into caves.

I used to write descriptions of cave diving fatalities in North America for the National Speleological Society. A couple years ago there was not one to write about. Not one.

So I guess it depends upon your definition of "a lot" when it comes to talking about how often people run out of gas in caves.

 

[boulderjohn]

As a follow-up to my last post on the rarity of cave diving fatalities, I should point out that the number of people dying in wrecks is also extremely low. It does happen, but the numbers are not all that high. What is interesting about this is that in contrast to cave diving, around the world thousands of people without any training enter wrecks every day. This is of course due to what I wrote earlier about the difference in the terms "wreck diving" and "cave diving." Wreck diving includes, for example, all the recreational divers going through the wheel houses in the South Florida prepared wrecks, which is more comparable to the people swimming through swim coral swim throughs than to caves.

 

[DevonDiver]

I dont hold much appreciation for 'global statistics'. The amount of incidents that aren't reported (to whom?) is higher than most people appreciate.

People in developed countries seem to assume that every country has efficient and uncorrupted systems for casualty reporting, inquests, liaison with diving research organizations etc.

That'd be a very wrong assumption.

That's for fatalities. When it comes to non-fatal accidents and near-misses, I'd suggest that only a tiny fraction of events is reported, collated or disseminated... especially in the developing world (where most divers vacation to).