What do you wish you could change about your (rec) wreck diving class?

[DevonDiver]

Firstly, I wrote an article some years ago that spells out my thoughts and principles on wreck training. It relates very directly to the OP's questions..

The Anatomy of an Effective Wreck Diving Course

Regards limits/definitions etc, there's a bunch of information here:
Advanced Wreck Diving | Techniques | Course Notes

The limits on recreational wreck penetration (and cavern also) are pretty much universal across all the agencies.

I can barely remember my first wreck class, but I know that it was pretty insubstantial and that I did much more the way of self-learning over the following decades. Nowadays I teach at, and beyond, technical wreck level for 2 (soon to be 3) agencies.

My honest thought about the PADI Wreck Diver course... as a paper syllabus... is that it is woefully inadequate for wreck penetration competency; both in comparison with cavern training and in respect to the dedicated in-water training time allowed to develop both fundamental diver skills, guideline skills and team skills.

Nonetheless, an instructor with expertise, and hopefully higher level wreck qualification, can use that basic syllabus as a vehicle to deliver effective penetration focused training.

I typically provide extended training for my wreck students, with further dives added to refine fundamentals, more guideline practice, penetration contingency skills and a plethora of related supplementary skills. I also provide that extra training for qualified wreck divers (and instructors) in a clinic format.

Specifically for the PADI Wreck Diver course, I tailor/focus the dives to achieve specific aims.. beyond what the minimum standards demand.

Dive #1 is conducted on a very shallow wreck site. The majority of the time is spent developing basic fundamentals - trim, buoyancy, propulsion, maneuvering, communication and team diving skills. This dive is repeated until fundamental skills are sufficient to not present hazards in a penetration.

Dive #2 is a pre-penetration survey. I teach how to research the wreck in advance, proper dive planning and using a variety of resources to inspect the wreck for hazards and create resources for subsequent penetration dives. This includes mapping.. and annotating previously obtained maps... and also the use of video (GoPro) for team planning later. I also include gas management and precision dive planning.

Dive #3 is all about guideline skill. We lay guideline, we follow guideline, we follow guideline in black mask and we follow guideline as a team using tactile communication. We then retrieve guideline as a team. I teach proper tie-offs, wraps and route management.

Dive #4 is an actual penetration dive into an intimidating, but actually benign, area of a large wreck. The purpose of this dive isn't to empower great confidence in the student. It is, after all, only a single dive.

The student will be highly task loaded and will gain a good understanding of their capabilities in relation to demands they have to meet. They should emerge with a profound respect what's needed to enter the wreck environment, an understanding of the need for further training and practice.. and a good insight into their own strengths and weaknesses.

 

[boulderjohn]

My honest thought about the PADI Wreck Diver course... as a paper syllabus... is that it is woefully inadequate for wreck penetration competency; both in comparison with cavern training and in respect to the dedicated in-water training time allowed to develop both fundamental diver skills, guideline skills and team skills.

I agree--the outline by itself is not adequate, but there is nothing stopping a good instructor from making it all it should be. To me, though, the biggest problem lies in the phrase "in comparison with cavern training." The cavern diving course is very much comparable to the cavern diving courses of the major cave diving agencies, but that is not the only difference.

The main difference is instructor qualification. A cavern diving instructor must be a fully certified cave diver, whereas a wreck instructor need only have completed a certain number of wreck dives.

In cave diving training, cave divers lay line under expert supervision over and over and over and over and over again. They learn the protocols inside and out. When they dive in caves after certification, they (or a member of their team) will lay line at least once and sometimes several times on nearly every single dive. In contrast, In the hundreds of wreck dives I have done, I have only had to lay line a relative handful of times. In almost all dives, I went in one place and came out another (swim-throughs), with no real potential for getting lost. For such entrances, laying line is neither needed nor appropriate. What that means is that if you take a wreck diving course, there is a very good chance that the wreck instructor has never been taught to lay line by anyone with any special training. It is even possible that the only times the instructor has ever seen line laid is when he or she has taught a wreck diving class. In theory, if you are that instructor's first student, when he or she demonstrates laying a line, it may be the first time any of you has seen it done.

There was even a time, and it was not long ago, that experienced wreck divers (and instructors) claimed it was never appropriate to lay line in a wreck. They advocated a system called "progressive penetration," which translates to "get to know the wreck a little at a time." One of the first wreck divers I trained with was of that ilk, and he said it irritated him t see line laid in a wreck.

 

[DevonDiver]

Line laying in wrecks can be complicated if the dive is a planned as a 'traverse' (separate entry and exit points). This means a second penetration/dive is necessary to recover the line.

Cave dives tend to be 'reciprocal' (in-and-out the same entry/exit route) and the line is recovered each dive.

But neither is a hard and fast rule. Either can occur, in either environment. Often, popular cave systems have permanent (gold) lines that only necessitate jump/gap lines to be used.

Wreck penetrations can easily be planned as reciprocal penetrations. It's only a matter of planning.

For regularly dived wrecks, I'm surprised that more local dive operations don't set permanent lines along the prime routes. Lives would have been saved over the years.

The biggest hazard in wrecks tends to be silt out. Silt out turns a benign penetration into a terrifying, potentially lethal scenario very quickly. Just read up about the very recent fatality on Coron, Philippines, for an illustration of that.

Most silt outs result from human error (incompetency), but even relatively 'non-silty' areas can lose visibility if there were a collapse or shift in structure...and that can happen.. more frequently than most would assume.

Guidelines provide an assurance to find the exit... whereas purely progressive penetration can easily leave you guessing and encourages self-doubt.. made more rampant as the stress levels rise with each passing second.

I've dived the local wrecks here in Subic hundreds, if not thousands, of times.. and I still wouldn't feel totally confident to touch-feel my way out if I lost visibility.

Been there, seen it, done it... and the moment when you realize you can't see anything and your direction has become disorientated is a real cold-sweat, gut clenching, heart racer... it's not nice.

I'll usually demonstrate this with students.. putting them into black mask in the water column. It's very hard to swim in a perfectly straight line without visibility or a textile reference. Same goes for holding a set depth.. many struggle to do that with visibility. When visibility goes, they unknowingly plummet or float up.. creating great disorientation.

They inevitably swim in a circle.. if there's any imbalance in weighting or any tenancy to slightly favor a leg etc... and then lose all directional reference to where the exit lies. The drill immediately, and irrevocably, diminishes any a confidence they'd have in relying on progressive penetration as their sole escape option.

 

[Schwob]

...snip...
Specifically for the PADI Wreck Diver course, I tailor/focus the dives to achieve specific aims.. beyond what the minimum standards demand.

Dive #1 is conducted on a very shallow wreck site. The majority of the time is spent developing basic fundamentals - trim, buoyancy, propulsion, maneuvering, communication and team diving skills. This dive is repeated until fundamental skills are sufficient to not present hazards in a penetration.

Dive #2 is a pre-penetration survey. I teach how to research the wreck in advance, proper dive planning and using a variety of resources to inspect the wreck for hazards and create resources for subsequent penetration dives. This includes mapping.. and annotating previously obtained maps... and also the use of video (GoPro) for team planning later. I also include gas management and precision dive planning.

Dive #3 is all about guideline skill. We lay guideline, we follow guideline, we follow guideline in black mask and we follow guideline as a team using tactile communication. We then retrieve guideline as a team. I teach proper tie-offs, wraps and route management.

Dive #4 is an actual penetration dive into an intimidating, but actually benign, area of a large wreck. The purpose of this dive isn't to empower great confidence in the student. It is, after all, only a single dive.

The student will be highly task loaded and will gain a good understanding of their capabilities in relation to demands they have to meet. They should emerge with a profound respect what's needed to enter the wreck environment, an understanding of the need for further training and practice.. and a good insight into their own strengths and weaknesses.

Andy,
as you outline this class in your post, it actually sounds quite good for a recreational PADI Wreck class. Would have loved to take that class.

Mine was so poor, I did not regret having gone diving, but most else about it. But, while I shouldn't have, I picked it myself, even so I wondered about it... I was sold like a sucker ... and I guess that means I deserve it... Hopefully I learned from that...

 

[sigxbill]

@boulderjohn - thanks for posting the padi rec wreck standard. someone else from padi once told me the course penetration was limited to 130' (40m) from the surface into the wreck. so I am glad to clear that up.

"Swim through"? LOL. So I guess when I do a one mile traverse during a cave dive, according to padi it isn't really an overhead dive - it's a "swim through" - because I went in one hole and came out the other! Thanks for the smile ;-)

@DevonDiver - why bother issuing the padi rec wreck card if you are going to teach it as a real wreck class anyway? No one they show it to is going to believe it qualifies them as a true wreck diver - where they will be able to dive a sketchy wreck the operator wouldn't have taken them to otherwise? Why not issue the ANDI (or maybe RAID) card - that specifically indicates the diver has at least a few actual penetration skills?

cheers

 

[Erich S]

What's the prerequisite for taking the PADI wreck class?

 

[DevonDiver]

@DevonDiver - why bother issuing the padi rec wreck card if you are going to teach it as a real wreck class anyway? Why not issue the ANDI (or maybe RAID) card - that specifically indicates the diver has at least a few actual penetration skills?

The wreck syllabus with RAID is one of the primary driving factors why I'm currently crossing over. They offer 3 levels of wreck training; Basic (non-penetration), Advanced (limited penetration) and Technical (full penetration).

I had to write my own Technical Wreck course for PADI, and was also finalising a penetration focused recreational level wreck course that'd replace my current clinic format.

I've had another course design on paper (Advanced Technical Wreck) for some time.. and eventually, I'll be seeing if I can make this a reality also.

Personally, I've never cared about what agency initials were on my c-cards. I choose by instructor only... and it was their name on my card that was indicative of the training I'd received. I hear that sentiment from many of my students also.

At the end of the day, plastic c-cards count for very little. Nothing more than alleviating the liability concerns of the operator that takes you diving on a given day.

Skill, competency and mindset is something you get to prove purely by your mindset attitude and the way you plan, prepare and conduct your dives.

That's how you stand out.

 

[DevonDiver]

What's the prerequisite for taking the PADI wreck class?

Adventure Diver and 15+ years old.

 

[sigxbill]

Andy wrote, "plastic c-cards count for very little. Nothing more than alleviating the liability concerns of the operator that takes you diving on a given day.plastic c-cards count for very little."

If that were true, then why bother "crossing over" to raid? why be anything but padi? or one of the others? and yet you are padi, raid, andi, bsac, and ssi! And you advertise those 'plastic c-card brands' as part of your signature - as though they validate you. If you really believe they count for very little, then why not sign just your posts with:

"Andy Davis - Bad Ass Sidemount - Technical - Wreck Courses and Clinics" - period.

I like the sound of that better!

thanks for the response,

cheers ;-)

 

[DevonDiver]

...why bother "crossing over" to raid? why be anything but padi? or one of the others?

Well, obviously there's a myriad of factors beyond just what's printed on the plastic cards I issue.

BSAC was my first agency as an instructor - I taught in military clubs
PADI was the obvious choice for employment when I decided to travel and work across the globe
SSI was specifically needed for a dive center manager position I took in Thailand
ANDI was because I was long-term mentored and developed by Bruce Konefe... a pioneer with ANDI

I taught PADI TecRec for a decade because I thought the syllabus/course structure was excellent for encouraging progressive, phased development in my students, allowing experience-breaks between formal training courses and has standards and procedures that empowered me to teach students to a level that I am proud of. and very satisfied with. Plus, PADI do a good job in administratively supporting me as an independent instructor operating in remote locations. I can also develop and author my own courses with PADI.

RAID is a new agency and offers me the opportunity to get involved at a grass-roots/developmental level. I very much like the modern approach with eLearning and that they have been quick to develop a more comprehensive wreck syllabus. I also like how they differentiate 'levels' of diving.... recreational, advanced recreational and technical. The big agencies don't raise the bar as you progress through the recreational curriculum.

From what I've seen, I very much like the ethos and mindset of RAID...and the personalities involved. Their recreational courses do stand-apart from the big agencies... with specific standards that, I feel, promote a higher standard of diver.. stricter trim/buoyancy requirements, multiple ascent stops in horizontal trim, DSMB deployment on every dive, SAC calculation and proper gas management.

I teach very few recreational classes with PADI....pretty much just wreck and sidemount...most of my work is all at technical diving levels. However, feel I'd enjoy teaching classes like Advanced35 and Deep40 with RAID... that opens up more work opportunities without sacrificing job satisfaction.

I'm also long overdue progression to Technical Instructor Trainer level. That wasn't an option with PADI... both due to expense and personal feelings on the CD system.. and how that relates to training tech instructors. About 1/3rd of my sidemount/tech/wreck students are currently professional divers; instructors or instructor-trainers...and it counts for nothing. Joining RAID enables future progression to Tech IT to become an achievable middle-term goal.

It's got little or nothing to do with the agency initials on the cards I issue

Why do I list all the agencies in my signature block? Because I think that having a massive breadth of multi-agency experience counts for something. ...but that's a separate discussion.