What Next?

[Centrals]

This is a basic scuba!
No-viz gas sharing(single file) and lost line drill are parts of tec wreck course. Not really appropriate to discuss here!

 

[ginti]

This is a basic scuba!
No-viz gas sharing(single file) and lost line drill are parts of tec wreck course. Not really appropriate to discuss here!

You are right; let me rephrase it: how do you understand when a wreck is "tec" and not "basic"? If you have an answer, be detailed, please.

 

[Ayisha]

If I remember well, you have a bit of tec/cave-training, don't you? Maybe you can help me in understanding a bit more Do you believe drills/gas sharing in no-viz should be done, or are actually useless in a rec-wreck course? If useless, are people taught, in a way or another, to understand which wrecks are riskier and require more training?

No, I don't have any tech/cave training. I only have GUE Fundies.

By my quote above, I mean that I knew what the wreck specialty course outline was and lost line drills and gas sharing were not on it, so I'm sure none of us were expecting to do it. I had already compared it to a cavern course that I was interested in at the time.

One of the owners had told me earlier that wreck penetration was optional and if we were all comfortable with it, the instructor would do it. We were all comfortable, so we did it.

My wreck course was 19 years ago, but in the wreck chapter, book, and course, there was a lot of information about sort of surveying a wreck on the first dive, looking for hazards, exits, light sources, staying within the light zone, running a line, keeping a thumb and finger loosely circled around a line, rule of thirds, not silting up a wreck, etc.

I can't say that actually happened during the course, although it was good experience for all of us. It certainly gave us an appreciation of how fast things could go south rather than unknowingly underestimating the next wreck we might have gone to had conditions been perfect.

 

[Centrals]

You are right; let me rephrase it: how do you understand when a wreck is "tec" and not "basic"? If you have an answer, be detailed, please.

It is all depend on the individual.
Plenty of divers went beyond their training and came back alive and happy.
You can put a sign on it but......no scuba police.
Wrecks in Truk lagoon. How many of them who went inside the cargo hold of Fujikawa Maru and looked at the Zero are suitably qualified for the dive? How many divers who descend on to the deck of San Franciso Maru at 50m are qualified?

 

[ginti]

It is all depend on the individual.
Plenty of divers went beyond their training and came back alive and happy.
You can put a sign on it but......no scuba police.
Wrecks in Truk lagoon. How many of them who went inside the cargo hold of Fujikawa Maru and looked at the Zero are suitably qualified for the dive? How many divers who descend on to the deck of San Franciso Maru at 50m are qualified?

Well, I asked for a detailed answer... do not get offended, but anyone here ready knew that many people did things beyond their level of training and come back alive. But I am not interested at all in what people do.

I am interested in understanding how to reasonably differentiate between a "tec" wreck and a "rec" one. Frankly speaking, for me, the difference between rec and tec wrecks doesn't exist. I believe that, if you enter an overhead environment, you need to be able to exit in no-visibility while gas sharing. But maybe I am too strict. If I am too strict, why?

The answer to this question requires:
(A) data
(B) industry standards
(C) experience, especially of instructors
I do not think there is any structured data available, but you speak about "how many people"... well, how many? (order of magnitude, not precise amount). And how many accidents?
Industry standards: I assume people doing a rec-course are taught to stop at a certain point. To understand when a wreck is too much. Where does this point lie?
Experience, in this case, is more that of instructors, but also that of wreck specialists. What kind of experience do you have?

I know these questions are quite hard, and may not have an answer. I can accept that you do not have an answer.

 

[Centrals]

I am not offended at all.
Scuba diving is a recreational sport.
I limited myself to 18m in the beginning and then moved on gradually as more experience and training were gained.
Set your own standard and abide by it.
If you believe in no overhead environment without training and suitable equipment then nobody could argue with you. But inevitably you have to accept the opposite view!!!

 

[ginti]

Thanks for sharing your view

If you believe in no overhead environment without training and suitable equipment then nobody could argue with you. But inevitably you have to accept the opposite view!!!

That's fine, I accept it.

My point is that I am wondering whether or not there are standards about it, or what instructors think about it, that's it

 

[Centrals]

There is standard for rec and tec wreck course separately. The difference is day and night(my own experience). Rule of third, turn pressure calculation, equipment required etc etc.
Instructor can only teach according to his/her qualification. But there are exceptions: The case involved "Girl dead and boy injured ...." discussed on Diving Litigation section at the moment. Incredible!!!!!! Absolutely beyond believe but happened.

 

[ginti]

There is standard for rec and tec wreck course separately. The difference is day and night(my own experience). Rule of third, turn pressure calculation, equipment required etc etc.
Instructor can only teach according to his/her qualification. But there are exceptions: The case involved "Girl dead and boy injured ...." discussed on Diving Litigation section at the moment. Incredible!!!!!! Absolutely beyond believe but happened.

That case is a horror movie. When I read it and I tried to imagine what that poor girl was feeling, I had to stop. Anyway, sticking to the topic, if there are standards, what do they say about how to differentiate a tec wreck from a rec one?

Ok about day and night (it doesn't make sense to me actually, but let's move on). What about environmental conditions, do they say anything? Something like "do not enter if there's a risk of a silt ut" or anything similar?

 

[Centrals]

You have to check the condition from outside first and make your own judgement. Tie the guide line outside the entrance and not inside in case of silt out on exit.
There are so many wrecks lying around and I do not think it is possible to classify them all. Beside who is going to enforce the "law"?
Risk of silt out is never an issue because you were taught to deal with it. Ask yourself the question first.
The added hazard is something might fall on top of you! Highly probable in any wreck. And old wreck is extremely dangerous in this sense. Some wrecks that I was quite happy to go inside yrs ago will never interest me again because I could clearly see the deterioration.