Does this course breakdown make sense to wreck divers?

[RainPilot]

Out of curiosity, what is the current going rate for GUE instruction?

Also to the OP, by Technical Wreck Diver what do you mean? For deco dives on wrecks you need OH protocols (can be included with Wreck 1 into a 5 day course) then Wreck 1 then Wreck 2.

Total cost 3250$, if you combine OHP and Wreck 1 it would be a little cheaper as the courses are based on a daily training rate.

 

[KevinNM]

GUE doesn't run a wreck course. They will refer you to people who are expert wreck instructors, like they do for sidemount.

The tuition cost for tech 1 (6 days) seems to typically be $2000. Rental, gas, charters, instructor travel, etc are all extra, and the course is a 2-3 student course.

 

[CAPTAIN SINBAD]

Also to the OP, by Technical Wreck Diver what do you mean? For deco dives on wrecks you need OH protocols (can be included with Wreck 1 into a 5 day course) then Wreck 1 then Wreck 2.

Total cost 3250$, if you combine OHP and Wreck 1 it would be a little cheaper as the courses are based on a daily training rate.

Good question. Mainstream agencies divide wreck training into recreational (very limited penetration) VS technical (serious penetration.) Decompression is taught separately. If we were talking about TDI, then you just have an "Advanced Wreck" course that focuses strictly on penetration techniques and is not depth connected. An Advanced Trimix diver can apply the same techniques at 300 feet while an AOW can apply them at 80 feet. When the word "technical wreck course" is used in that context then it does not necesserily mean penetration diving involving decompression.

From what you posted earlier, I am gathering that UTD does not perceive wreck diving the same way. Their wreck courses vary based on the depth at which you will be penetrating? The question then becomes, if you are a Trimix diver or UTD Tec 2 diver, do you really need two different wreck courses, one for all penetrations within Tec 1 level and an additional course for all penetrations to 200.

Many thanks.

 

[CAPTAIN SINBAD]

BTW, here's a couple of articles that may be informative in relation to the OP's questions....

The Anatomy of an Effective Wreck Diving Course

Explaining the Technical Wreck Course - Approaches To Advanced Wreck Diving

Great article. Second one. One paragraph needs a little more insight. What do you mean when you say there are three distinct schools of thought regarding wreck diving. You mention North East USA - Wreckers, European / UK wreck explorers and Florida cave inspired. I understand that the last one refers to GUE community and their off shoots but what are the procedural differences between the other two.

 

[DevonDiver]

UTD Course Structure:
Wreck 1:... 400' penetration on main guideline only...
Wreck 2: 5... max penetration is 660'...
Wreck 3.. penetration distance unlimited.

These penetration distances look distinctly 'cut-and-paste' from a cave course. 660ft/200m penetration into a wreck?

How many wrecks would even allow that? The Titanic is only 269m from tip of bow to stern...

Out of interested, how do they compare to UTD equivalent levels of cave? Same?

Most advanced/technical wreck courses don't quote penetration distances. That's because the penetrations aren't as linear as caves and often, much more convoluted.

Wreck penetrations rarely cover as much distance as cave penetrations. Gas issues are simpler in that respect. But you'd typically take longer covering a shorter distance... exploring, digging through stuff, looking for souvenirs, recording details to help identify a virgin find... etc etc

There's also, generally, alternative exit points, frequently allowing traverse-type dives, and/or emergency egress when needed.

Penetration distances are often considered irrelevant to wreck. Other factors, specific to individual wrecks and routes, are what matters... and these can't be defined in a certification. Wreck divers are educated to set prudent limits and apply risk awareness.

One of the biggest issues in cave is gas loss versus significant distance to surface. That issue is less significant on wrecks...but there's other issues that can make wreck penetrations equally, or more, dangerous.

Cut-and-paste cave course outlines into wreck courses doesn't reek of expertise to me....

 

[DevonDiver]

.. what are the procedural differences between the other two.

Hard to explain, without writing a whole other analytical article. There's many facets, attitudes and traditions in regional wreck diving.

Crowbars and Jersey lines, necessity of trim, attitudes to silting, weighting strategies, team procedures... can all vary.

As years pass, obviously 'DIR' and hogarthian config has become more popular... But it's slower in some regions. That's also true for some of the protocols and procedures originating from Florida caves....

Check out some BSAC websites, read John Chatterton's blog, Shadow Divers, Gary Gentile's book...

 

[DevonDiver]

Mainstream agencies divide wreck training into recreational (very limited penetration) VS technical (serious penetration.)

I've always felt there needs to be a logical step between 'basic' and technical. It's too big a jump.

Cave training generally puts some training between cavern and full cave (i.e. 'intro-to-cave')

I offer intermediate training. It gives recreational divers more skills and drills without extending their limits, whilst also acting as a primer for technical wreck... giving prospective technical wreck divers some time to practice and ingrain a higher level of line/reel use and the major contingency drills.

Yes, wreck divers get their deco from a parallel path... cave divers don't.... but there's a lot of beneficial preparation that can be done in pure penetration skills before embarking on technical wreck.

I'm actually finishing writing up an updated wreck syllabus at the moment (on my site soon)... it goes:

1. Wreck Diver (basic)
2. Advanced Wreck Diver (tecreational)
2. Technical Wreck Diver (full)
4. Advanced Technical Wreck Diver (stages, restrictions and complex routes)

 

[DevonDiver]

When the word "technical wreck course" is used in that context then it does not necesserily mean penetration diving involving decompression.

The way I see it, a technical wreck dive turns into a straight technical dive once you exit the wreck with all cylinders in place.

The depth of the penetration is irrelevant, very straightforward....and it's already fully covered by the student's existing deco qualification level.

Point-of-Note: You should be a very competent technical diver, before you consider adding overhead environment to the mix. It's not prudent to still have glitches in your base tech skillset when en-route to the cramped bowels of a leviathan.

Technical Wreck is not the venue to be developing general tech and deco competencies.

The only real depth consideration for wrecks is appropriate gas selection (END) to limit narcosis in the overhead environment. You don't need separate wreck courses to teach that

Again, I think the idea of depth/deco levels for technical wreck is just another inappropriate 'cut-and-paste' from cave curriculum (where depth / deco increases have a FAR greater impact on dive complexity and necessary training).

I'm pretty lucky here in Subic Bay, as I've got a literal playground of big wrecks at a variety of depths. I run technical wreck in the 18-32m range.... as this gives exceptionally long bottom times for maximum practice, and it keeps gas bills to a minimum.

If I had to run courses somewhere else, where there's only deeper wrecks, I'd keep the same equivalent narcotic depth... So what'd really change, except a massive helium bill and less bottom time for skills and drills?

 

[RainPilot]

These penetration distances look distinctly 'cut-and-paste' from a cave course. 660ft/200m penetration into a wreck?

How many wrecks would even allow that? The Titanic is only 269m from tip of bow to stern...

Out of interested, how do they compare to UTD equivalent levels of cave? Same?

Most advanced/technical wreck courses don't quote penetration distances. That's because the penetrations aren't as linear as caves and often, much more convoluted.

Wreck penetrations rarely cover as much distance as cave penetrations. Gas issues are simpler in that respect. But you'd typically take longer covering a shorter distance... exploring, digging through stuff, looking for souvenirs, recording details to help identify a virgin find... etc etc

There's also, generally, alternative exit points, frequently allowing traverse-type dives, and/or emergency egress when needed.

Penetration distances are often considered irrelevant to wreck. Other factors, specific to individual wrecks and routes, are what matters... and these can't be defined in a certification. Wreck divers are educated to set prudent limits and apply risk awareness.

One of the biggest issues in cave is gas loss versus significant distance to surface. That issue is less significant on wrecks...but there's other issues that can make wreck penetrations equally, or more, dangerous.

Cut-and-paste cave course outlines into wreck courses doesn't reek of expertise to me....

@DevonDiver They arent cut and paste. The UTD cave courses break down into depths, restrictions and navigation (jump lines, exploration lines etc) there is no mention of any linear distance.

Again, Im NOT an OH diver but would it not be quite easy to use up a 400' reel going into even a (relatively) small wreck? Im thinking into shafts, around obstructions etc. I am not sure of the reasoning behind the distances but the depth limits line up with the Tech levels. I suspect that since those Tech levels are prerequisites for the same Wreck level, it may be that the depths are stipulated as to line up in the training manual. It simply says "Max training depth xxx'/xx m". No UTD Wreck course will give you additional depth beyond other certs.

Wreck 1 will give you a wreck-reational cert similar I imagine to your "Wreck Basic".

Good question. Mainstream agencies divide wreck training into recreational (very limited penetration) VS technical (serious penetration.) Decompression is taught separately. If we were talking about TDI, then you just have an "Advanced Wreck" course that focuses strictly on penetration techniques and is not depth connected. An Advanced Trimix diver can apply the same techniques at 300 feet while an AOW can apply them at 80 feet. When the word "technical wreck course" is used in that context then it does not necesserily mean penetration diving involving decompression.

From what you posted earlier, I am gathering that UTD does not perceive wreck diving the same way. Their wreck courses vary based on the depth at which you will be penetrating? The question then becomes, if you are a Trimix diver or UTD Tec 2 diver, do you really need two different wreck courses, one for all penetrations within Tec 1 level and an additional course for all penetrations to 200.

Many thanks.

As above, the courses are not directly linked to depth but since the Tech courses are prerequisites it kinda ends up that way. The other differentiating factor is the number of bottles allowed, since this may be the only OH diving one does I can imagine that handling larger numbers of stages etc may require more training?

The S&P for UTD is available here UTD Standards and Procedures v4.0.2 - Free Download · UTD Scuba Diving

I am only acting in this thread as a source of info since i happen to have the manuals here on my computer, I have no insight at all into the UTD OH training. All opinions expressed are my own and thus probably wrong.