Lessons Don't go in a wreck, even an "easy" one

[BoltSnap]

There are so many variables when it comes to diving or a particular dive. Risk assessment is very personal and many times based on experience. When someone makes “blanket” statements, IMHO, it reduces their credibility. All IMHO, YMMV.

So making a blanket statement that diving in caves without appropriate training and/or equipment, on single tank without redundancies is a very bad thing will be not good advice and reduces ones credibility?

 

[Neilwood]

When skiers go to a new resort and try to decide which runs to take, they look at a map which has the runs marked with different colors and symbols indicating the difficulty. The skiers can then choose the ones that are best suited to their ability.

About a decade ago, I tried to design a similar system for scuba overhead environments. I gave up. I finally instead got a distinctive specialty called Understanding Overhead Environments approved by PADI (and that approval was not easily achieved, believe me.)

Overhead environments range from swimming under the anchor chain to exploring complex cave systems. Some can be done by brand new divers; in fact, short, simple swim throughs are allowed by PADI under certain conditions for the OW certification dives. At the other extreme, divers need years of experience, lengthy training, and specialized equipment. Divers need to make a reasonable decision about a planned entry by making an objective decision about whether they have the skill and equipment necessary for what lies before them. What is a simple dive for one diver is a definite "no go" for another. They key is knowing the difference.

I think this should form part of the OW course. Diving is all about risk management and providing people the suitable tools to manage that risk should be there from the start. The simple "Overheads will kill you" does nobody any favours imho.

As a UK diver, we get fairly used to diving in conditions that some abroad might think are undivable - green water with vis of 1-2m is quite routine. I have noticed because of this we tend to be more confident in making risk assessments about diving in difficult conditions.

As such I am happier with low vis situations than some others. Going in to an overhead (with plenty of gas) which is wide open and has one clear entrance and one clear exit with very or no few entanglement hazards and little to no silt is fairly benign whereas another overhead with lots of adjoining rooms and hazards is a different ball park.

There are so many variables when it comes to diving or a particular dive. Risk assessment is very personal and many times based on experience. When someone makes “blanket” statements, IMHO, it reduces their credibility. All IMHO, YMMV.

Agreed. There are so many variables to "overheads" that blanket statements are sometimes an extreme answer to a more simple question.

I have dived a number of overheads (even with my low number of dives) from a simple 1m swim through on my OW dives, an approx 10m long "cave" which was actually a straight swimthrough and a number of Red Sea wrecks all of which were very sanitised and pretty risk free. In all those cases, there were either limited exposure to risk by virtue of the extent of it (the swim through took a maximum of 1 minute of very slow finning while in "overhead" and the wrecks all had one fairly wide route with numerous routes of escape if in trouble. Worst case scenario would have been a reg malfunction/ gas issue which I would have been able to escape the "confined" space within 20-30 seconds or managed to air share even within the spaces. These types of spaces are dived by hundreds if not thousands of divers without issue every year. I might even rethink doing those if conditions weren't ideal such as a high degree of surge or current or if I didn't have confidence in my buddy.

Would I dive a cave such as those in Florida or a more complex wreck (such as one with adjoining rooms or hazards such as machinery in the engine room)? No because I know I don't have the skills/ equipment to manage them. I know enough to know that these more complex overheads kill even experienced well trained divers so I have no business in being there.

 

[Lorenzoid]

So making a blanket statement that diving in caves without appropriate training and/or equipment, on single tank without redundancies is a very bad thing will be not good advice and reduces ones credibility?

I think the point some people in this thread are making is that it would depend on how one defines "cave." There are the guided cenote (cavern) dives in Mexico that have an impressive safety record. There are sea caves (again, caverns) in Europe that I believe are frequently visited by OW divers. Granted, because a lot of information about caves has been disseminated to the diving community, most of us have a pretty good idea what a cave is. Nevertheless, I think the point could be made that there are the same issues with determining whether a particular cavern entrance makes for a relatively benign dive as there are with determining whether that hole in the wreck is a mere "swim-through."

 

[boulderjohn]

I think this should form part of the OW course. Diving is all about risk management and providing people the suitable tools to manage that risk should be there from the start. The simple "Overheads will kill you" does nobody any favours imho.

I have long argued this. Students are told never to go into an overhead environment, and then they go to Cozumel and are led through swim throughs. They go to South Florida and swim through simple wrecks. Once they realize that the "no-overheads" rule is BS, they have no guidance whatsoever.

That argument was central to my discussions with PADI a couple of years ago. I was asked to submit different language. They liked it. It was published in the professional journal two years ago under the heading "Thinking like a Diver," and I was cited as the source. They said it will make its way into the OW coure in the next revision. Who knows? Maybe it will.

 

[Eric802]

We went into overhead environments and did penetration dives during my PADI OW certification. Sunken school bus in a quarry - we'd kneel on top of it to perform skills and then swim through it. Had no idea at the time that PADI would consider that a penetration dive.

 

[lexvil]

 

[Akimbo]

Students are told never to go into an overhead environment, and then they go to Cozumel and are led through swim throughs. They go to South Florida and swim through simple wrecks. Once they realize that the "no-overheads" rule is BS, they have no guidance whatsoever.

That is true for all "over simplified" rules. Obviously you can hold your breath, you can hold your breath on Scuba, you can hold your breath on Scuba when ascending from 130' to 120'. It is very dangerous from 10' to the surface. I guess some people just remember rules and none of the physics and physiology they should understand.

I saw a newbie on their first boat dive who thought they weren't allowed to swim under the hull.

 

[iointerrupt]

Funny enough when I dove the C-53 a number of years ago, the current outside was ripping so hard we all felt safer inside.

Nevertheless, if you read OPs report, it's really a "lost buddy" incident, not "overhead gone wrong".

Lot of Caribbean dive vacations include one wreck dive, which catches you out as the one dive different from all the rest. If you spend all week diving pretty Cozumel reefs, you get use to unlimited visibility, and just casually glancing around to find your buddy. This falls apart when you are inside a wreck with sight-lines measured in feet. Turn a corner and your buddy is gone.

Certainly happened to me once diving the Prince Albert in Roatan. Our fault, changed our environment but didn't change our buddy strategy.

But the lesson here should be as simple as "stick to your buddy like glue in a prepared wreck". It isn't "bring doubles and a reel", as you are going to get a lot of funny looks from all the split-fin tourists as flutter-kick past you.

 

[Lorenzoid]

But the lesson here should be as simple as "stick to your buddy like glue in a prepared wreck".

Yes. That's one of the rules of overhead diving (let's exclude solo diving). Also, how to signal to your buddy using your light. There may even be others that could be applicable to "prepared wreck" dives like the one being discussed. I think the lesson could be stated a little more broadly: bring the right tools (including techniques) needed for the dive.

 

[Chavodel8en]

There are so many variables when it comes to diving or a particular dive. Risk assessment is very personal and many times based on experience. When someone makes “blanket” statements, IMHO, it reduces their credibility. All IMHO, YMMV.

Agree, although I warn against making judgments without all information (as opposed to making "blanket statements.")

I think alot of it depends on if the OP went in swim-throughs or actual penetration. The video posted here looks like penetration to me - but thats not video of his actual dive. Also note that he said the guide said he must have 1000 psi - but he didnt report his actual psi - he could have had more. Without seeing his actual dive, having his SAC, etc. I dont know that I have the information to pass judgment.

For folks questioning OPs judgment, I would add that this is a "lessons learned" thread and the OP has reassessed his view of wrecks, even easy ones.

Noting boulderjohn's point that recreational divers need to make their own assessment re "overhead": For me, if I can see an easy egress from the entry, its a swim through, and I'm OK with it (assuming my buddy is and my air situation). I have no desire to do actual penetration -- for one, Im severely claustrophobic - it wouldnt be fun.