Thinking about PADI "Wreck Diving" Cert

[Wormil]

That is nonsense.
Using Option B, you could literally conduct a wreck course on a sunken car, or small wooden canoe. Yes... it is that cynical..

I think those are both at the bottom of the Hudson Grotto.

 

[jimthediver]

I've got AOW, Nitrox, Rescue. Going to Caymans on Aggressor in August - and it looks like there's some cool wrecks we'll be diving on - the Kittiwake and a Russian ship.

So, I'm kind of a "by the book" guy - and would stay out of wrecks unless a DM said, "swim through, from here to there" like I did once on one of my AOW dives. But I'd like to go in the wrecks - so is the Wreck cert worth it? Some friends (with way more experience) were like, aw, you don't need that. But I've read a few books about accidents and posts - I'd rather have some basic training at least.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

PC

PC

I think this thread while providing of a lot of good discussion and information maybe getting away from the original point of your post (you can correct me if I am wrong). I have not been on the specific wrecks in Cayman that you mention however they are two of a series of "wrecks" intentionally sunk as attractions in the Caymans. I have been on some of the others. These wrecks have all been specially prepared to be accessible by recreational divers. I doubt that you will be able to find a place on the wrecks where you can not clearly see the way out. There are no doors or hatches that can close behind you. All wiring, panelling etc. that could come loose and be a hazard has been removed. They haven't been down long and with all of the through traffic silt accumulation is minimal. You won't need a Wreck Diving cert to explore these wrecks. All that being said, once you go inside you are in a more hazardous overhead environment. Plan and dive accordingly!

It will probably give you the bug to do more. There are many sensational wrecks off the east coast of NC. Most of them are not so prepared and they demand proper equipment and training. I strongly encourage you to seek out the kind of training and quality of instruction described by DevonDiver and others on this thread if you want to really get into wreck diving. Don't rush to find a course that you can complete before your trip in August. Its really not required for what you will be doing on that trip. Just my opinion!

jimthediver

 

[Pseudocyber]

Hey Jimthediver,


I think you got it exactly right. I'm about 3 hours from the coast, and would like to dive out there. I probably need to pick up dry suit diving - and get experience doing it - first.

Thanks,

PC

 

[divermike1011]

I do not think the PADI wreck course as taught exactly to the standards is worth your time. Interview your potential instructor and make sure that the course offers what you feel you need in order to wreck dive safely. I did it with a by the book PADI instructor and it was a waste of time -- didn't go over many of the skills DevonDiver mentions nor did we talk about things like reducing silt outs etc.

Find someone who is truly passionate and knowledgeable about wreck diving to take it from

Michael

 

[Centrals]

I know one technical wreck instructor who would insist PADI wreck or similar rating before the student would allow to enrol for the tech course. Otherwise....more training and fees.

 

[Rhone Man]

I think the PADI Wreck Diver course is one of the better specialties. It is not (and does not pretend to be) a penetration course. But it does a good job of initiating the newer diver to the potential hazards of wreck diving.

Most "recreational" wreck diving, you don't need a cert for at all. But the Wreck Diver course will certainly add to your knowledge and skills. (Handling a reel may look simple, but it is a lot trickier when you try it for the first time.)

 

[DevonDiver]

I think the PADI Wreck Diver course is one of the better specialties. It is not (and does not pretend to be) a penetration course. But it does a good job of initiating the newer diver to the potential hazards of wreck diving.

This, I am not sure about. I do wish that the learning goals were clearer, as they present a very blurred line regards the issue of penetration. With at least one dedicated penetration dive option, constant mention of 'penetration line' skills and multiple references to, and images of, wreck penetration within the course manual and DVD... I can easily see how many students might feel that the course is aimed to provide some level of competency in wreck penetration (which it doesn't).

Just try counting how many times the word 'penetration' appears in the PADI performance requirements for the 4 dives (see my earlier post). The manual and DVD are also pretty liberal with the word.

For a start, PADI could refer to the 'penetration line' as a guideline. This would reinforce the potential advantages of using a line outside of the wreck for navigational purposes. It could also reduce the amount of references it makes to penetration dives... or at least, add a caveat that further training is required etc. It should also stress more the limitationsapplied at recreational level - within the light zone, no restrictions etc. It isn't clear about those... and most students only understand the '40m linear from the surface' advice.

Personally, I don't mind that PADI 'over-inflates' the wreck course - because that gives me the scope to apply a broader experience and skill base to make the course more worthwhile. What does worry me is that the course could also be taught by any self-certified (5 logged wreck dives and a cheque) wreck instructor, who may never have penetrated a wreck, used a guideline or dealt with low viz, silt or restricted spaces in their life before.

What I'd like to see is the division of the wreck course... into 'Wreck Appreciation' and 'Wreck Penetration'.

Wreck appreciation would be for 'normal' wreck instructors. It would remove the option to teach Dive 4-A (penetration)... and also the remove penetration skills from dives 2 & 3.

Wreck penetration would be more akin to cavern diving, where only suitably qualified technical and/or advanced wreck instructors would be able to teach those skills related to overhead environment/penetration.

 

[gypsyjim]

I took the PADI Wreck Diving course a few years ago, partially because I really hate close spaces, and thought that the class would help me face a challenge, head on. In some ways it did.

Did it prepare me to become a trained wreck diver? In no way. Did it give me a deeper appreciation of the risks, skills, and techniques involved in penetrating a wreck? It certainly did.

If penetrating serious wrecks is ever on my horizon, I will seek further training, but everything I learned in that class was valuable. The PADI course director I did the class with is extremely dedicated to producing a safe, well trained diver. He is the regional expert on rescue and recovery, in cave or wreck situations, and teaches a pretty tough class.

 

[scubadiveilat]

If you start to think and debate the answer should be! You should.

If it's something that you enjoy and are interested in Wreck Diving. The experience will full your desire. You'll enjoy it and have fun. However don't push if it's not of an interest for you.

Have fun and enjoy!

 

[Rhone Man]

What I'd like to see is the division of the wreck course... into 'Wreck Appreciation' and 'Wreck Penetration'.

I remember an instructor in the UK who had created an "Advanced Wreck Diver" specialty, which was heavily focused on penetration. I thought that was a really good idea that PADI should leap on when I heard about it. But it does rather devalue the basic Wreck Diver cert.

Not arguing with the main thrust of your post above, but I always regarded the main purpose of the basic Wreck Diver cert was to make divers much more aware of the risks which accompany penetration. Although I appreciate that a lot of the text is fairly ambiguous, and can easily be read as qualifying a diver for penetration.