captain
Contributor
Please not again, we went through Devon's training rant in the solo forum.
Recreational Wreck Diving vs Cave Diving. Why the Inconsistency?
- Thread starter DevonDiver
- 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
DeusVerto
Contributor
I see that this issue has many parallels in the aviation space.
Virtually all countries in the world have a national enforcement of aviation safety rules because one reckless or unqualified pilot can literally put hundreds of lives at risk.
In scuba, an irresponsible diver usually only risks his own life. Being a fierce proponent of individual liberty and responsibility, I am loathe to suggest that government intervene to protect people from themselves. Apparently, most nations agree; the Scuba industry is largely self-regulated. Operators of diving businesses buy liability experience and look to tort case law for guidance.
And so it is with the "ultralight" aircraft industry in the US. It is possible to buy (or make) a single-seat craft with an empty weight of less than 254 pounds (115 kg) and fly outside of important traffic areas with no license or regulation whatsoever. The inference here, again, being that with only one passenger and limits to the size and capability of the aircraft, the only person at risk is the pilot.
Still, anyone not willing to go through customary Experimental Aircraft Association channels to get some training beforehand will experience some difficulty in doing business. Imagine the plaintiff's attorney, "So, Mr. Airplane Seller, you sold Mr. Smith your FleaCraft 5000 having no idea he was a quadriplegic, and you didn't bother to ask him?". The EAA is acting as the "PADI" of personal aviation.
So the diving industry IS and can continue to be self-regulating, because the scope of risk is generally limited to the well-being of the singular person engaging in it. That said, we do not want to have so many expire from their own hand that some politician will consider it a career enhancement to force rules down our collective throats. It is therefore incumbent upon ALL of us to strongly encourage a training and qualification structure that, at a very minimum, duly informs people of the risks of certain behavior.
Training should be more that just "how to". Where certain types of diving carry additional risks, such as swimming into an area in which you could get stuck, we must educate of the risks first. In my opinion, just looking at a metal reef doesn't carry additional risk unless it's deep. Deep water diving has already been well-served by existing educational syllabi.
If people then choose to assume the additional risks of a particular style of diving, our industry education has to articulate those risks and give students the knowledge to mitigate them where ever possible.
Trying to check ID's at the door of every cave or wreck isn't going to work.
Virtually all countries in the world have a national enforcement of aviation safety rules because one reckless or unqualified pilot can literally put hundreds of lives at risk.
In scuba, an irresponsible diver usually only risks his own life. Being a fierce proponent of individual liberty and responsibility, I am loathe to suggest that government intervene to protect people from themselves. Apparently, most nations agree; the Scuba industry is largely self-regulated. Operators of diving businesses buy liability experience and look to tort case law for guidance.
And so it is with the "ultralight" aircraft industry in the US. It is possible to buy (or make) a single-seat craft with an empty weight of less than 254 pounds (115 kg) and fly outside of important traffic areas with no license or regulation whatsoever. The inference here, again, being that with only one passenger and limits to the size and capability of the aircraft, the only person at risk is the pilot.
Still, anyone not willing to go through customary Experimental Aircraft Association channels to get some training beforehand will experience some difficulty in doing business. Imagine the plaintiff's attorney, "So, Mr. Airplane Seller, you sold Mr. Smith your FleaCraft 5000 having no idea he was a quadriplegic, and you didn't bother to ask him?". The EAA is acting as the "PADI" of personal aviation.
So the diving industry IS and can continue to be self-regulating, because the scope of risk is generally limited to the well-being of the singular person engaging in it. That said, we do not want to have so many expire from their own hand that some politician will consider it a career enhancement to force rules down our collective throats. It is therefore incumbent upon ALL of us to strongly encourage a training and qualification structure that, at a very minimum, duly informs people of the risks of certain behavior.
Training should be more that just "how to". Where certain types of diving carry additional risks, such as swimming into an area in which you could get stuck, we must educate of the risks first. In my opinion, just looking at a metal reef doesn't carry additional risk unless it's deep. Deep water diving has already been well-served by existing educational syllabi.
If people then choose to assume the additional risks of a particular style of diving, our industry education has to articulate those risks and give students the knowledge to mitigate them where ever possible.
Trying to check ID's at the door of every cave or wreck isn't going to work.
UCFKnightDiver
Contributor
I am not a fan of regulation per se... especially not Legal regulation, but if you "self learn" what happens when you don't know what you don't know? Is it not good to take a class rather than try and reinvent the wheel? On the other hand I am a fan of mentoring to an extent... it's a pretty fuzzy gray line.
Anyways for wreck penetration I think an overhead class at least need be taken from a competent qualified instructor, recreational outside the wreck classes are dumb!
Anyways for wreck penetration I think an overhead class at least need be taken from a competent qualified instructor, recreational outside the wreck classes are dumb!
DevonDiver -- I agree with the general tone of your post BUT (and of course there is often a "But" in these things) I would separate your argument into two parts:
a. Should a diver need to have formal training (ala caves) prior to doing wreck diving (however defined)? No, I don't think so -- for many reasons already covered.
b. Should an Instructor have formal training (ala caves) prior to TEACHING wreck diving (however defined)? YES.
I am a PADI certified "Wreck Diver Specialty Instructor" -- a piece of paper I got through the magic of certifying more than 24 people at one level or another and by informing PADI that I had more than 20 dives on (but not IN) wrecks.
Did that make me a specialist instructor capable of teaching someone how to safely dive on, or God forbid, in a wreck? No Way!!!
For me, I felt I had sufficient extra training in other areas to permit me to safely train someone how to safely do dives on a wreck -- that training coming from my Cave training, my technical training and some specific wreck training. I know that I am not experienced enough to try to teach someone how to safely penetrate a wreck (which is something I won't do except for the most benign of wrecks -- can you say the Rhone?).
OTOH, I am aware of an instructor who does not have my training background and who is quite willing, and does, "teach" new divers it is OK to penetrate wrecks in recreational scuba gear, no redundantcy and no line. He has the same piece of paper I have (actually it is a different piece of paper, but you get the idea!).
I am very glad PADI requires its Cavern Instructors to have significant additional training -- I wish it did the same for Wreck and Ice.
a. Should a diver need to have formal training (ala caves) prior to doing wreck diving (however defined)? No, I don't think so -- for many reasons already covered.
b. Should an Instructor have formal training (ala caves) prior to TEACHING wreck diving (however defined)? YES.
I am a PADI certified "Wreck Diver Specialty Instructor" -- a piece of paper I got through the magic of certifying more than 24 people at one level or another and by informing PADI that I had more than 20 dives on (but not IN) wrecks.
Did that make me a specialist instructor capable of teaching someone how to safely dive on, or God forbid, in a wreck? No Way!!!
For me, I felt I had sufficient extra training in other areas to permit me to safely train someone how to safely do dives on a wreck -- that training coming from my Cave training, my technical training and some specific wreck training. I know that I am not experienced enough to try to teach someone how to safely penetrate a wreck (which is something I won't do except for the most benign of wrecks -- can you say the Rhone?).
OTOH, I am aware of an instructor who does not have my training background and who is quite willing, and does, "teach" new divers it is OK to penetrate wrecks in recreational scuba gear, no redundantcy and no line. He has the same piece of paper I have (actually it is a different piece of paper, but you get the idea!).
I am very glad PADI requires its Cavern Instructors to have significant additional training -- I wish it did the same for Wreck and Ice.
David_57
Contributor
Agreed if no other avenue is open to you and its your choice not regulated.
I was lucky to find a few very experienced wreck divers willing to take me under there wing. For me that's a better option than any course that gives you a card at the end which you can flash out then the assumption is made you must be able to dive the said wreck.
I over heard the following conversation with our dive leader Diver A "do you mind if I dive with you", our DL "have you ever dove this wreck before" (deep low vis), Diver A I'm a certified DM", DL "thats not what I'm asking have you dove this wreck before" Diver A "No" DL " then forget it".
Training standards for agencies courses yes. But thats only for their courses. Im completely against non agency regulation for non-agency courses (aka government interference).
A good start here...
First, if you haven't already read the attached Silt! article, please do before reading the rest of this post...
--
Now, as background, I dive wrecks; I dive caves...
For wrecks, I think there are four general "wreck" dives... Here are my recommendations:
(1) - Around the outside at recreational depth. In addition to basic OW training, the diver should understand site-specific hazards like sharp edges, entanglement with cables, hawsers, lines and fishing line/nets, currents near holes in the hull, fragility of corroded structure (collapsing structure), etc. No specialized training required.
(2) - (1) + swimthroughs. I define a swimthrough as a place where the entrance and the exit are two different holes - that is, you don't have to turn around (and swim back through the silt cloud behind you) to get out; visibility is good enough that you can see the exit from the entrance, you can see that the way is clear and big enough before entering the entrance, and, the total distance from the entrance to the surface is 130 ft (40 M) or less. Again, no specialized training required, but a bit of added awareness.
(3) - (2) + Penetration that meets "cavern" specs (that portion of an overhead space that is illuminated by daylight, no deeper than 100 feet (30 meters), within a total distance of 200 feet (60 meters) from the surface, and with no restrictions between the diver(s) and the surface. A restriction is defined as a passage too narrow for two divers to pass simultaneously (side-by-side or above-and-below). ). "Cavern" equivalent - let's call it "Basic Wreck" - training required.
(4) - (3) + Penetration beyond the "cavern" specs. "Full Cave" equivalent - let's call it "Tech Wreck" - training required.
And, of course, there are plenty of things you can do in wrecks that require training beyond "Tech" - but hopefully by the time anyone's considering those they have enough under their belt to fully understand and appreciate what's involved & plan accordingly.
Rick
Let's talk about "cave" diving first. There is a wide spectrum of what one MIGHT call a cave. At one extreme is a shallow arch that an untrained skin diver can swim through easily. Then come longer and deeper swim throughs that are still easily done every day by recreational divers. Then we have short lava tubes and sea caves. Then we get into real caverns. Finally we have real caves. At some point--and people will argue that point--we shift from perfectly safe for a recreational diver to requiring some recreational training. At another point we shift to technical training required.
It seems to me that wreck diving is the same thing. Some wrecks are so small, open, and benign that I cannot imagine any OW diver having a problem with them. The wrecks get increasingly complex, and at some point you have to draw the line and require some recreational training. At another point you must have more technical training. If you were to demand technical training for any wreck penetration, the dive industry in the Fort Lauderdale area would end overnight.
It seems to me that wreck diving is the same thing. Some wrecks are so small, open, and benign that I cannot imagine any OW diver having a problem with them. The wrecks get increasingly complex, and at some point you have to draw the line and require some recreational training. At another point you must have more technical training. If you were to demand technical training for any wreck penetration, the dive industry in the Fort Lauderdale area would end overnight.
OP
DevonDiver
N/A
Some great points being raised by all parties.
One of the things that raises questions to me, is why this stuff isstill open to interpretation and debate. I love Rick's definitions of wreck 'level'. These would be a good help if they were attached to training courses as a guide to what the course provides...and the end product student is qualified (not certified) to do. Recreational wreck courses should leave students in no uncertainty of what they are and are not prepared and trained to accomplish. To date, I've not seen a recreational wreck course that achieves that education.
Regards 'Regulation'... this is a vast area and could have many different interpretations. I think, in my mind, this was more about the regulation of agencies and operators, than the regulation of divers. I'd have no idea how and what those regulations would be. Perhaps some cave divers can share their experiences of how this applies to that activity?
I thhink regulation of the agencies would be beneficial. Cave/Cavern have organizations like the NACD, NSS/CDS and CDAA, which seem (to me - I am not a cave diver) to be more focused on safety and best practice, than on commercial goals. When I look at the state of recreational wreck training, I think that the agencies cannot be trusted to do what is right.
I am still uncertain about the requirement to train. Obviously it must depend on the nature of the wreck penetration conducted. There are, however, some very dangerous penetrations...and whilst a diver has every right to risk their life by exceeding their training... it is also unfair to put other divers at risk who may have to conduct rescue or body recovery operations. Campaigning for personal freedom is one issue. Putting others at risk is another.
One of the things that raises questions to me, is why this stuff isstill open to interpretation and debate. I love Rick's definitions of wreck 'level'. These would be a good help if they were attached to training courses as a guide to what the course provides...and the end product student is qualified (not certified) to do. Recreational wreck courses should leave students in no uncertainty of what they are and are not prepared and trained to accomplish. To date, I've not seen a recreational wreck course that achieves that education.
Regards 'Regulation'... this is a vast area and could have many different interpretations. I think, in my mind, this was more about the regulation of agencies and operators, than the regulation of divers. I'd have no idea how and what those regulations would be. Perhaps some cave divers can share their experiences of how this applies to that activity?
I thhink regulation of the agencies would be beneficial. Cave/Cavern have organizations like the NACD, NSS/CDS and CDAA, which seem (to me - I am not a cave diver) to be more focused on safety and best practice, than on commercial goals. When I look at the state of recreational wreck training, I think that the agencies cannot be trusted to do what is right.
I am still uncertain about the requirement to train. Obviously it must depend on the nature of the wreck penetration conducted. There are, however, some very dangerous penetrations...and whilst a diver has every right to risk their life by exceeding their training... it is also unfair to put other divers at risk who may have to conduct rescue or body recovery operations. Campaigning for personal freedom is one issue. Putting others at risk is another.
Ahem...
Last time I checked, you (that's a generic "you") can't put me (that's a generic "me") at risk by killing yourself in a cave or a wreck. I may choose to take some risk to recover your body, but if I do that's not your fault.
So don't feel you have to limit your freedom to take risks on my account.
Rick
Similar threads
