Wreck penetration and queuing

[boulderjohn]

For me, I let common sense rule my decisions when I started to penetrate wrecks. If I was on the outside of a wreck and could easily see my way through I had no problem going in and swimming through. Also, most of the time you're going to be on a boat with a dive operation when you go. I know when we have visited the Tibbets wreck on Cayman Brac, the DM will give a briefing on the wreck and will identify certain areas of the wreck that have wide openings and would make a good place to enter and look around and they offer to lead you through such areas if you would like for them to.

I'd say use the same criteria, good judgement and the dive briefing, to decide if you want to do a swim through or not.

Yep. For many and perhaps most people, common sense is all it takes, and if you took the course, you might well argue that a lot of it is common sense. For example, if you can see that entire inside of a wreck with multiple entrances and exits, that would be a criterion for deciding it might be something you can handle. The familiarity issue Bob mentions would also be a factor. If you have dived the Tracy off Fort Lauderdale 10 times and know there is nothing in the main deck deck area but schools of fish, you will probably feel just fine about entering it again.

But not all people are blessed with common sense, and not all people are concerned enough about familiarity. For example, a couple of years ago someone argued on ScubaBoard that he could swim from the Devil's Eye spring to the Devil's Ear spring at Ginnie Springs in Florida. They are two entrances to the same cave and not very far apart, so it would be just like the swim throughs he had done so many times before. All you have to do do is keep left to keep heading to the Ear opening. Common sense, right? Of course, he could not tell that it only looked that way on the surface. The way the tunnel from the Eye turns means that the opening to the Ear is behind you and to the right as you swim--almost unnoticeable. Keeping left takes you into the Catacombs, a silty labyrinth of tunnels. It is believed that an open water diver found in the Catacombs a couple of years ago got there because he, too, was fooled by the apparent swim through situation, but he was in no condition when he was found to explain his reasoning.

The course content includes that example in great detail, BTW. The picture used was supplied with permission by a key member of one of the cave diving agencies in the hope the course would help keep untrained people out of caves.

 

[Tigerman]

Well, the problem with common sense is that its not so common anymore.. and hasn't been for a while..

 

[Frosty]

My view is that if you can't see the exit then its no longer a swimthrough. Pretty easy really

 

[NAM001]

I dont agree.... It is pretty stupid to require a student to agree to no divng outside of ndl, no overhead, no gasss other than air for the duration of the class. I think the student had to initial each of these items upon completion of the course, prior to getting the temp card. If it pertained to the course this would have been done at the start of the course not the end after trianing dives were completed. Never the less this student left the course with these signed rules in mind. Oh yes no diving beyond 60 ft was on the list also.

PADI standards are generally for courses only. Students are required to have snorkels, and instructors are required to have them as well. There are no standards for the diving that anyone does outside of the course, though, stupid or not. There is not one word in PADI standards that says a snorkel must be worn outside of instruction. The same is true of overhead environments. They are not allowed in instructional situations except for very specific instances. That is even true in the Introduction to Overhead Environments course. The course teaches that some very basic overhead environments are acceptable without specialized training, but the course itself cannot have any actual dives in an overhead environment. In addition, the content must clearly state that the course does not provide any training designed to prepare students to dive in overhead environments. It simply goes into the different kinds of overhead environments, explains why most require specialized training, and tells the student how to get that specialized training.

 

[beanojones]

You left out this part:

Exceptions: Ice, Cavern or Wreck Diver Specialty courses, and special orientation dives for certified divers, and some TecRec dives, as specified.

Or as I am putting it, I left out the part where PADI violates it own standards as a money grab. They have a tech side now, so they no longer have to violate their own standards to do these things, so why not do so?

What is the argument for allowing non-redundant untrained divers into overhead environments?

It cannot simply be that be most of the time nothing goes wrong, because most of the time nothing goes wrong is an absolutely silly reason to do away with any rule. Drunk Driving, Texting while Driving, playing soccer in the street, diving without a computer or tables also are perfect examples of "most of the time, nothing goes wrong things that (in the first two cases escpecially) MILLLIONS of people do every day.

Low benefit/high risk (even if the risk is rare) is the reason for rules.

 

[boulderjohn]

I dont agree.... It is pretty stupid to require a student to agree to no divng outside of ndl, no overhead, no gasss other than air for the duration of the class. I think the student had to initial each of these items upon completion of the course, prior to getting the temp card. If it pertained to the course this would have been done at the start of the course not the end after trianing dives were completed. Never the less this student left the course with these signed rules in mind. Oh yes no diving beyond 60 ft was on the list also.

Well, you must have had an unusual course with an unusual instructor who added an unusual requirement. None of what you say above is required by PADI or even mentioned.

The standards are for the instructor to see and follow when teaching the class--the student does not see them unless the instructor chooses to show them. The warnings my students get about entering overhead environments when they take the OW course are found on a printed sheet of paper that I created and give them in addition to the course.

The "rule" about staying above 60 feet without further training is mentioned in the course, but it is a recommendation. You will find some operations in some places that follow it and restrict divers to those depths, but they are not the norm. In fact, the only reason I know they exist is because I learned about them through posts on ScubaBoard. I have never encountered one myself.

---------- Post added July 8th, 2014 at 09:52 AM ----------

Or as I am putting it, I left out the part where PADI violates it own standards as a money grab. They have a tech side now, so they no longer have to violate their own standards to do these things, so why not do so?

Once again, you are confusing the rules for professionals working with students from the rules (or lack thereof) governing people just going out and diving. The "special orientation dives for certified divers" exception allows a professional leading an orientation dive to enter an overhead environment with a client. The fact that they are allowed to go into overhead environments on "orientation dives" (the purpose of which is to show the client the area so that the client can then dive the area without a guide) should indicate that there is no prohibition for that.

You say it is a PADI money grab. How so? If a dive operator in Florida chooses to do a guided dive into a simple wreck (which, BTW, I saw happen on the last dive I did there), how does PADI get a single penny out of it? How do they even know it happened? In the case I witnessed, a family visiting Florida from Texas asked to have a professional show them around a very simple wreck, and they were willing to pay the shop to have that done. The PADI exception allowed the instructor leading the dive to do so without the liability risk of a standards violation for entering an overhead during instruction. What is wrong with that?

What is the argument for allowing non-redundant untrained divers into overhead environments?

The argument is that in many cases, like the simple arch described before, is so very simple that even a poorly skilled snorkeler can do it easily. Why should someone who wants to swim under a simple arch be required to take a cavern course first?

It cannot simply be that be most of the time nothing goes wrong, because most of the time nothing goes wrong is an absolutely silly reason to do away with any rule. Drunk Driving, Texting while Driving, playing soccer in the street, diving without a computer or tables also are perfect examples of "most of the time, nothing goes wrong things that (in the first two cases escpecially) MILLLIONS of people do every day.

This is a common fallacy. Everything we do in life entails some degree of risk, and assessing the track record of that risk is a valid way of determining its degree of safety. People crossing the street with the safety of a controlled intersection are sill sometimes hit by drivers running red lights, but the track record of crossing the street while observing the signals properly is pretty good, so we do it. If we are so afraid that something MIGHT happen to us that we stay in bed all day, we risk bed sores. If something is done often enough without a problem, we deem it to be safe.

That is actually the problem that led to the creation of the course and was a key part of the discussion that led to it. If you have a blanket "no overheads of any kind" policy that is violated safely by thousands of divers regularly all around the world as they go through simple swim throughs and small sanitized wrecks, then they may well decide that, "Hey, the overhead diving I do in these swim throughs is pretty easy, and they are lying to me when they say that overheads are so dangerous. I dive them all the time. They are probably lying to me about those caverns and caves, too." Unlike a blanket, no exceptions policy, the course teaches that not all overheads are alike. It accepts that some overheads (including simple arches) can be dived without additional training, but others do require training. It explains why, and it tells them what kind of training is available.

 

[DevonDiver]

Those light zone areas are no where near what caverns provide. Its hard to difrentiate between a swim through and a ships passageway the has natural light in it. Anyone who wants to go down the passageways will see no difference from a swim through,

As far as I'm aware "light zone" has the same definition universally?

In a nutshell:

An area inside the overhead environment illuminated by natural light from the entrance/exit.

Diagram from "Getting Started in Cavern Diving" by Harry Averill:



The 'light zone' is not, never, merely an "illuminated area"... portholes etc don't count... because they aren't your entrance and cannot be used an exit (bearing in mind the other classification of "no restrictions" itself defined as "an area big enough for two divers to comfortably pass through side-by-side whilst sharing air").

There is no mention of "swim through" as a classification of overhead environment on any agency course or syllabus materials.

What rule? Where is it officially stated? By whom?

How about PADI's 'Standard Safe Diving Practices Statement of Understanding", paragraph #2?

"2....Engage only in diving activities consistent with my training and experience. Do not engage in cave or technical diving unless specifically trained to do so."

As signed and agreed to by all qualifying PADI divers....

"Consistent with training", for any open-water recreational diver is "direct vertical access to the surface", unless trained otherwise (cavern/wreck/ice). This is because open-water recreational divers are trained in techniques like CESA or AAS sharing, where a direct and vertical ascent is taught as the sole solution to gas supply problems.

 

[boulderjohn]

How about PADI's 'Standard Safe Diving Practices Statement of Understanding", paragraph #2?

"2....Engage only in diving activities consistent with my training and experience. Do not engage in cave or technical diving unless specifically trained to do so."

No question about it--dives should not engage in cave or technical diving without being specifically trained to do so. The course emphasizes that. The rest of it is your interpretation, using your own added language.

There is no question, BTW, that this is a change in thinking, new this year. As a participant in the discussion pursuant to it, I am well aware of the original thinking and the thinking that led to the change. The key point was the understanding that when divers "engage in diving activities consistent with ... [their] experience," the experience of a very high percentage of divers includes simple swim throughs and sanitized wrecks. Such a diver might argue that this experience allows them to do more complex overheads. This course teaches otherwise.

The discussion also recognized that many of these divers have no real opportunity for any local training before they encounter opportunities for overhead diving. Let's take where I live in Colorado. We have among the highest number of divers per capita in the nation, yet we have nearly no local diving. I am certified to teach cavern diving, but the nearest cavern I know of is more than a long day's drive away. I am certified to teach wreck diving, but the only wreck I know of within many hundreds of miles is a small Cessna in Aurora Reservoir. As a result, I have never certified a single diver in either course. So where do all these many thousands of Colorado divers go for their diving? Mostly to Cozumel, where the majority of them will enjoy the swim throughs without any training. This course does not provide any training, but it does educate them about the different levels of risk they may encounter when they dive, thus enabling them to make more educated decisions in that regard.

 

[NAM001]

Devon
I think we are in agreemeent on this. We are familiar with the cave side and relate what we know about cave and cavern to swim throughs. They are far brom being the same but share the same catagory definition. Those that are not familliar with the cave side of things relate the non threat environment of swimming through a boat pilot house of a reef prepared vessel to what the universal definition of OVERHEAD and ILLUMINATED areas are and derive a false sence of security and think of the cavern and cave systems as being as safe as the piolot houses. IE i can do a swim through a prepared bus on a lake bottom that ws placed there for divers. Technally it is an overhead with exits every 5 feet. The falacy comes in when those that dive the busses think that the cavern's adn acaves because of the shared definition of overhead is no different than the bus. The appropriate concerns for gear and protocols in caves become over precaution to non cave familiar divers when relating to non cave environments.

As far as I'm aware "light zone" has the same definition universally?

In a nutshell:

An area inside the overhead environment illuminated by natural light from the entrance/exit.

Diagram from "Getting Started in Cavern Diving" by Harry Averill:

View attachment 188354

The 'light zone' is not, never, merely an "illuminated area"... portholes etc don't count... because they aren't your entrance and cannot be used an exit (bearing in mind the other classification of "no restrictions" itself defined as "an area big enough for two divers to comfortably pass through side-by-side whilst sharing air").

There is no mention of "swim through" as a classification of overhead environment on any agency course or syllabus materials.



How about PADI's 'Standard Safe Diving Practices Statement of Understanding", paragraph #2?

"2....Engage only in diving activities consistent with my training and experience. Do not engage in cave or technical diving unless specifically trained to do so."

As signed and agreed to by all qualifying PADI divers....

"Consistent with training", for any open-water recreational diver is "direct vertical access to the surface", unless trained otherwise (cavern/wreck/ice). This is because open-water recreational divers are trained in techniques like CESA or AAS sharing, where a direct and vertical ascent is taught as the sole solution to gas supply problems.

 

[Redshift]

PADI Instructor Manual says in General Standards: Do not conduct open water dives and Discover Scuba Diving experience dives in caves, caverns, under ice or in any situation where direct vertical access to the surface is not possible.

PADI standards are generally for courses only. Students are required to have snorkels, and instructors are required to have them as well. There are no standards for the diving that anyone does outside of the course, though, stupid or not. There is not one word in PADI standards that says a snorkel must be worn outside of instruction. The same is true of overhead environments.

The standard cited is for instructional dives, not for dives undertaken by certified divers outside of an instructional setting.

What? So you are saying that students are taught in a certain way, with certain protocols, but nothing applies after they are certified?
What's the point of an agency requiring the use of the snorkel because it thinks it's the appropriate way to do things if after graduation they are told it's not needed?

All those mixed messages are going to endanger divers. And then people still become surprised with divers diving beyond their training and abilities? Apparently it's being promoted that rules are just for training, after that do what you want.

I wonder if an instructor is leading divers in an overhead environment (not in class) and there is an accident, it will be agreed that they were allowed to be there and he has no responsibility...

How about trimix? Why stop at changing the required equipment divers learn to dive with and forgetting the rules about overhead (have you noticed the name on the certification is Open Water?)? How then can you tell them not to use nitrox? Or trimix? It all looks like a slippery slope.

How about PADI's 'Standard Safe Diving Practices Statement of Understanding", paragraph #2?

"2....Engage only in diving activities consistent with my training and experience. Do not engage in cave or technical diving unless specifically trained to do so."

As signed and agreed to by all qualifying PADI divers....

"Consistent with training", for any open-water recreational diver is "direct vertical access to the surface", unless trained otherwise (cavern/wreck/ice). This is because open-water recreational divers are trained in techniques like CESA or AAS sharing, where a direct and vertical ascent is taught as the sole solution to gas supply problems.

No question about it--dives should not engage in cave or technical diving without being specifically trained to do so. The course emphasizes that.

Emphasizes that, but tells them that some overheads are ok?
As DevonDiver asked, how do they do CESA? And share air in a passage inside a wreck? Do they have long hoses, carry backup torches, etc?
As soon as the training and equipment requirements stop working in a certain environment, divers need further training! It's simple.

There is no question, BTW, that this is a change in thinking, new this year. As a participant in the discussion pursuant to it, I am well aware of the original thinking and the thinking that led to the change. The key point was the understanding that when divers "engage in diving activities consistent with ... [their] experience," the experience of a very high percentage of divers includes simple swim throughs and sanitized wrecks. Such a diver might argue that this experience allows them to do more complex overheads. This course teaches otherwise.

If there is a change in thinking it should be translated into the teaching practices and regulations. Rules that are later broken need to disappear and instruction to allow divers to do these simple swim throughs needs to be included at some level for all divers.

Sanitized wrecks... like the HMS Scylla in the UK, 24m bottom, cleaned inside, holes cut everywhere... several divers have died there already...
Or easy caves, where divers are taken every year, and every year we see divers dying...

The discussion also recognized that many of these divers have no real opportunity for any local training before they encounter opportunities for overhead diving.

So because they don't live in an area where they can get the proper training, the best option is to give them some pointers and let them go ahead? If I don't have caves nearby can I get a cave card just in case I go to Mexico and come across those nice caves?


I said before that even though diving in very simple overheads could increase the risk, it's probably not that much and some divers can safely dive these places.
What I am criticizing is the incredibly sloppy way things are being done, with comments regarding the rules being only for training and not for diving afterwards and without specific training included in the normal diver progression that can help them dive these simple, but different environments.