Should OW certified divers be taken into a deep wreck? Overhead? Thread split

[Dhboner]

Swim-throughs and "wreck-throughs" are not the same in my humble opinion. An arch through a section of reef is generally short, has only one possible route and light penetration is usually fair to good. A "wreck-through" can be a fairly lengthy bit of finning, can provide several options which can be potentially confusing (especially if the DM is leading a larger group through and you lose sight of the diver in front) and can be a silty environment where a few lazy fin kicks can result in zero visibility. Recreational/vacation divers rarely have lights with them for daylight reef dives and wrecks, even smaller ones can get very dark in a hurry.

---------- Post added March 11th, 2015 at 04:48 PM ----------

Just to clarify I came up with "wreck-through" to describe what some people seem to have experienced when a DM leads them in through the one side of the hull and out through the other in a relatively straight line.

 

[Lorenzoid]

This is something that's had me puzzled since my dive vacation in Italy a couple years ago. Apparently, some people - guides? - consider swim-throughs to be da sh!ite. Our guide seemed to believe that we would get some kind of kick out of swimming through a small, kind of narrow, stone arch. Meh. I've later talked to other divers who see the same thing: tourists seem to be taken through swim-throughs as some kind of thing that their clients would get something out of.

Then again, people enjoy skiing between trees and that sort of thing, so maybe we humans are drawn by our nature to want to "test" our abilities--in this case, to see if we have the amount of control it takes to avoid hitting the sides. Or maybe it's a Freudian thing that draws us in.

The last place I want to test my abilities is on a group "fun dive" led by a divemaster. If I wanted to challenge myself, I think I would take a class and do it while learning more about the envelope I'm thinking of pushing. After the class I would do some dives with the specific goal of gaining experience commensurate with that training and, I would hope, see my envelope slowly expand. But when I'm on vacation or otherwise doing "just another dive," I prefer to remain comfortably within my present envelope. No Blue Holes, no challenging swim-throughs, etc., for me.

---------- Post added March 11th, 2015 at 05:00 PM ----------

Swim-throughs and "wreck-throughs" are not the same in my humble opinion. An arch through a section of reef is generally short, has only one possible route and light penetration is usually fair to good. A "wreck-through" can be a fairly lengthy bit of finning, can provide several options which can be potentially confusing (especially if the DM is leading a larger group through and you lose sight of the diver in front) and can be a silty environment where a few lazy fin kicks can result in zero visibility. . . .

You've been to Cozumel? There are some swim-throughs where it's possible to take a wrong turn, where it's too narrow for two divers to fit side by side, and where the light from the exit can't be seen from the entrance. I realize that Cozumel swim-throughs have an excellent safety record, but I wouldn't go so far as to generalize that "swim-throughs" are not as challenging as "wreck-throughs." I like the name differentiation, but I don't think it says anything about how challenging one is compared with the other.

 

[AdivingBel]

It's hard to specifically describe every "swim/wreck through" scenario. This thread has made a pretty good run at it with good info on things to keep in mind and watch for. I applaud those that see it as a black/white issue. IMHO, the important thing is to stay in your comfort zone. I like hunting around pretty reefs for seahorses. I can also be entranced by the topography of a wall or wreck. I know what I'm comfy with when I see it and what looks sketchy to avoid. There are some wonderful natural structures on Jackson Bight off Little Cayman (in nealy crystal water) that are three stories of swiss cheese with interesting critters on every shelf. Is it an overhead, sure. Is there plenty of ingress and egress, more than I can count. Am I going to do a 3D investigation, every time I dive the site. It's a big ocean.

Not a big fan of the "group swim-through scene" myself. They tend to turn into monkeyf***s. I'll either get there first or wait 'til the smoke clears or go the alternate routes (one of the sketchy things I eluded to above).

 

[Dhboner]

-------- Post added March 11th, 2015 at 05:00 PM ----------



You've been to Cozumel? There are some swim-throughs where it's possible to take a wrong turn, where it's too narrow for two divers to fit side by side, and where the light from the exit can't be seen from the entrance. I realize that Cozumel swim-throughs have an excellent safety record, but I wouldn't go so far as to generalize that "swim-throughs" are not as challenging as "wreck-throughs." I like the name differentiation, but I don't think it says anything about how challenging one is compared with the other.[/QUOTE]


I have been to Cozumel and I stand by my comment. Most of the swim-throughs (with the possible exception of "Devil's Throat") are less risky, with less potential to go pear-shaped than a trip through a wreck.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Jim, I don't want to steal info from your class, but in a nutshell, what did you tell your OW class on the topic of swim-throughs? Thanks.

For my students the definition of a "swim thru" that I would say might be ok for an OW diver is less than a body length, wide enough to swim side by side with a buddy through, no obstructions to get hung up on overhead or on the sides, and no chance of silting it up for divers who may be following behind. Would two body lengths be ok for someone? Not if I was leading or guiding a dive. better to take a look, swim around the entry, go over or around it, and see it from the other side.

Even with the one that I feel is maybe ok I neither endorse nor recommend they do it. I only make a suggestion as to what might be ok because I know somewhere, some misguided guide or DM is going to tell them, "Oh, we do this all the time! It's ok, no worries!" which is also the first sign that they should run away from that operation.

As for wrecks. For new OW divers it is never ok to enter one. Plenty to see on the outside looking in. If they want to go in, get further training. Wrecks can be deceptive when it comes to distance and what actually looks like a clear passage. As a dive professional I would never lead an OW diver into a wreck. I don't see how I could and still consider myself a professional. Inside of a class or out. Wreck penetration has it's place. In the proper training course to start. Then after by properly trained and equipped divers.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I have been to Cozumel and I stand by my comment. Most of the swim-throughs (with the possible exception of "Devil's Throat") are less risky, with less potential to go pear-shaped than a trip through a wreck.

Okay. If we're comparing all the swim-throughs in the world to all the wreck-throughs, maybe you're right: wreck-throughs, on average, are probably more challenging. Although I am thinking of some wreck-throughs I've seen where it's 10 feet from one side of the open wheelhouse to the other, that kind of thing is probably the minority of wreck-throughs. To me, any more challenging than that and it's no longer a wreck-through, it's a penetration. I really haven't paid a lot of attention to how many openings in wrecks I've passed by might qualify as wreck-throughs because I have never considered entering them.

Devils' Throat!?--from the pics I saw, no way no how would I do that. I know that thing is called a "swim-through," but seriously ....

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Just a small point. In one local quarry where I would do the skill dives for a wreck course and my recreational wreck courses there is big sikorsky helicopter with the clamshell nose. The cockpit is maybe 10 feet across. Both side windows wide open and the front windscreen gone big enough for a diver in doubles to carefully swim thru. Or so it seems. There is also algae hanging from the overhead in long green strands. Pretty thick ones. Until you look closely. Some of those algae strands are the overhead control levers in the cockpit. Not a helo pilot so don't know what they did. I do know they could easily snag the BC, reg, or hoses of a diver thinking that they could just "swim thru". It's why in my recreational wreck course one dive is spent mapping the wreck. Including noting entrances and exits. The next is spent identifying every hazard we can find. Outside and from the outside, the inside of doors and windows. Using a handheld mirror to avoid sticking ones head in.

 

[Basking Ridge Diver]

Just a small point. In one local quarry where I would do the skill dives for a wreck course and my recreational wreck courses there is big sikorsky helicopter with the clamshell nose.

So in your mind the Bus is off limits to your OW or AOW students? Not judging I am asking - I have taken my son through the bus and I was curious of your position.
Thanks.

 

[Bob DBF]

Put this another way - On the Tables themselves it may seem self evident to me - But there is no mention of advanced certification needed to use these tables. OW Certification is all that is needed to read and use these tables.

PADI Tables - "The Recreational Dive Planner is designed specifically for planning recreational (no decompression) dives on air only. Do not attempt to use it for planning decompression dives."
NAUI Tables - "Warning - Even Strict Compliance with these tables will not guarantee avoidance of decompression sickness. Conservative usage is strongly recommended."

Someone can of course say that it is only implied that these are for advanced divers (130 foot) but that would set these Agencies up for a lawsuit if these tables are not meant for OW Certifications and they sell them to anyone that buys them on the internet or at the shops and it is not explicitly stated these are for advanced divers and there is no check like Nitrox for certifications...

Originally the basic recreational training was for No Decompression Limit SCUBA diving and, at the time, I was trained to a limit of 190'. 200' you would be in deco and needed different tables and skills, but that is another story. Granted getting down, bottom time, and starting the ascent back was only 5 min so there was little point. In the intervening years the 130' recreational limit was instituted probably as a product of training agencies and insurance companies, although the training is still for NDL diving.



As for the swim-through issue, I just believe that your dive plan should insure that all the people that go on the dive come back. A half***ed plan may mean only half get back out, but you won't know that until later. And as we saw in this incident, don't expect a DM or guide to have a better plan than yours. I personally don't have a no swim-through/overheads policy for me, but I'm very picky with who I will have in there with me. And, as a elbow to Jim, the two on the top of my personal list are OW divers.



Bob
----------------------------------------------

That's my point, people, by and large, are not taught that diving can be deadly, they are taught how safe it is, and they are not equipped with the skills, taught and trained to the level required to be useful in an emergency.

 

[oldschoolto]

I'm teaching my wife to be a wreck diver.... It's a long process... I had her on the Hilma Hooker 4 times before I let her do her first swim through a overhead cabin... And hours of talking about all the stuff to be looking out for... I don't know how someone can just take a diver into a overhead environment on a " JUST FOLLOW ME " dive... They are selling a amusement park ride...




Jim...