Wreck Penetrations?

[DevonDiver]

My comment was because I didn't know about that. But it makes sense. Now wouldn't something similar be possible the other way round? For a cave trained diver to be able to get a shorter wreck course, focusing more on the differences between environments and not needing the initial similar training on trim, propulsion techniques, reel work, lost line, no viz. etc exercises?

It's actually one reason why I like the concept of an 'overhead environment protocols' course. UTD offer that... and I'd love to see it adopted in concept by other agencies.

Hypothetically, I'd like to see a system where you could do your entry-level overhead (basic wreck/cavern) and then the tracks come together for a single, multi-applicable overhead environment skills course. That'd cover the universal stuff like trim, buoyancy, propulsion, reel skills, contingency drills (inc zero-viz) and a basic equipment configuration workshop. Thereafter, the tracks would separate to Full Cave or Technical Wreck. Beyond that level, there exists more scope for more multi-applicable (wreck or cave) courses, that focus on specific developmental goals; such as stage-diving techniques, advanced sidemount etc.

But as things are and even more after you said your qualifications would allow you to skip cavern and intro, wouldn't you do an intro level cave dive?

Yep, I'd do one tomorrow, if there was a cave nearby.

For perspective, what's described by John Bennett (below) is my daily bread-and-butter diving:

"...one of my most rewarding dives was a 35 metre wreck, in Subic Bay, in the Philippines. I managed to penetrate seven cabins and find a very tight restriction down to the third deck. Technically it was a very challenging dive – and I loved it."
- John Bennett, interview ‘Nekton’ magazine in June 2003 (Read the full interview here)

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

TDI Advanced Wreck is a single class with 6 dives.

NSS-CDS requires Cavern Basic/Intro Apprentice and Cave classes totaling a minimum of 16 dives to complete the curriculum.

I don't know how anyone could think AW is comparable training to Cave.

According to this link you can do Technical Wreck in as little as 5 dives. Much like open water

http://scubatechphilippines.com/wre...pines/technical-wreck-technical-diving-subic/

 

[DevonDiver]

TDI Advanced Wreck is a single class with 6 dives.

NSS-CDS requires Cavern Basic/Intro Apprentice and Cave classes totaling a minimum of 24 dives to complete the curriculum.

I don't know how anyone could think AW is comparable training to Cave.

According to this link you can do Technical Wreck in as little as 5 dives. Much like open water

Technical Wreck | Advanced Wreck | Technical Diving Courses | Subic

But you can't jump straight onto Technical Wreck, as you are insinuating.

Take a look at the prerequisites for most technical wreck courses; you'll find both basic wreck (cavern equiv) and a number of technical-level qualifications lists (normally either AN/DP or ER) as a minimum. That's quite a lot of diving, and skill progression.

Your post is nonsensical for it's deliberate skewing of the reality.

(That's my site by the way, so thanks for the link-plug). If there's anything you're unsure of about the nature of the course, just ask.

In the ANDI System, Technical Wreck is a direct equivalent to Full Cave and Basic Wreck is equivalent to Cavern - equivalent in level, but also in respect to high similarity in training dives/syllabus/skills taught. The ANDI basic wreck is nothing like the PADI/SSI etc wreck courses.

[Idiot Mode Engaged]

OMG... according to the website below, you can qualify as a CCR Mixed Gas Full Cave Diver in only 4 days... that's the same as Open Water!!!!!!!!!

TDI FULL-CAVE CCR MIXED-GAS - BLUE LABEL DIVING

The insanity of it!! The sheer absolute insanity!!!

[Idiot Mode Disengaged]

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

But you can't jump straight onto Technical Wreck, as you are insinuating.

Take a look at the prerequisites for most technical wreck courses; you'll find both basic wreck (cavern equiv) and a number of technical-level qualifications lists (normally either AN/DP or ER) as a minimum. That's quite a lot of diving, and skill progression.

Your post is nonsensical for it's deliberate skewing of the reality.

Nonsensical? Coming from an instructor that feels he's ready for cave diving without any formal cave training? Ok, I can live with that.

ETA, yeah I know it's your site. That's why I used it.

 

[DevonDiver]

Nonsensical? Coming from an instructor that feels he's ready for cave diving without any formal cave training? Ok, I can live with that.

You need to seriously re-read some posts....or lower your END from whatever your breathing now, because your acting narked.

I said, emphatically, the exact opposite.

Sorry, but I can't apologize for your inability to comprehend basic English.

See post #15 ....

For me, a technical-wreck instructor, I wouldn't go into caves without an appropriate cave qualification. There may only be small differences, but (as we know) it can be the small things that catch you out.

I've read literally hundreds of cave diving manuals, articles and other publications. I dive with qualified cavers all the time (on/in wrecks) and I was qualified as a technical wreck instructor by an I.T. who also teaches cave at the highest levels.

I'm also qualified in Advanced Sidemount - which has prerequisites of either Full Cave or Technical Wreck. So, in some sense, I'm "above" full cave.... but....

I'd still do full cave etc first before entering a cave system... the cost of the training, when balanced against my life, works out quite economical.

Exactly what message regarding my attitude to caves and cave training in that post was unclear or difficult to comprehend?

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

My comment was because I didn't know about that. But it makes sense. Now wouldn't something similar be possible the other way round? For a cave trained diver to be able to get a shorter wreck course, focusing more on the differences between environments and not needing the initial similar training on trim, propulsion techniques, reel work, lost line, no viz. etc exercises?



There is always someone who knows more and from whom we can learn. I think most people would do more training if it was accessible (both financial and logistically).

But as things are and even more after you said your qualifications would allow you to skip cavern and intro, wouldn't you do an intro level cave dive?

It's actually one reason why I like the concept of an 'overhead environment protocols' course. UTD offer that... and I'd love to see it adopted in concept by other agencies.

Hypothetically, I'd like to see a system where you could do your entry-level overhead (basic wreck/cavern) and then the tracks come together for a single, multi-applicable overhead environment skills course. That'd cover the universal stuff like trim, buoyancy, propulsion, reel skills, contingency drills (inc zero-viz) and a basic equipment configuration workshop. Thereafter, the tracks would separate to Full Cave or Technical Wreck. Beyond that level, there exists more scope for more multi-applicable (wreck or cave) courses, that focus on specific developmental goals; such as stage-diving techniques, advanced sidemount etc.



Yep, I'd do one tomorrow, if there was a cave nearby.

For perspective, what's described by John Bennett (below) is my daily bread-and-butter diving:

"...one of my most rewarding dives was a 35 metre wreck, in Subic Bay, in the Philippines. I managed to penetrate seven cabins and find a very tight restriction down to the third deck. Technically it was a very challenging dive – and I loved it."
- John Bennett, interview ‘Nekton’ magazine in June 2003 (Read the full interview here)

You need to seriously re-read some posts....or lower your END from whatever your breathing now, because your acting narked.

I said, emphatically, the exact opposite.

Sorry, but I can't apologize for your inability to comprehend basic English.

Right, I'm the idiot. Well played....

---------- Post added June 29th, 2014 at 05:42 PM ----------

Sorry, I can't keep up with your edits. I'll just have to let mine stand as is.

 

[DevonDiver]

Right, I'm the idiot. Well played....

Sorry, I can't keep up with your edits. I'll just have to let mine stand as is.

Nothing was edited in post #15. You just failed to read the thread. Nice one...

And the comment made about doing an 'Intro To Cave' dive was in context to a question about cave training. Yes... even if permitted to skip cavern, I'd still take the opportunity to take an intro-to-cave dive (supervised/taught), before full cave course started. Only an idiot would think I'd categorically and emphatically state a strong opinion about the necessity of cave training before cave diving... then progress in my very next post to stating I'd happily go into a cave without training.

And then the flawed comparison between a single course, and a series of single courses...

Comprehension seems to be an issue.

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

Nothing was edited in post #15. You just failed to read the thread. Nice one...

And the comment made about doing an 'Intro To Cave' dive was in context to a question about cave training. Yes... even if permitted to skip cavern, I'd still take the opportunity to take an intro-to-cave dive (supervised/taught), before full cave course started. Only an idiot would think I'd categorically and emphatically state a strong opinion about the necessity of cave training before cave diving... then progress in my very next post to stating I'd happily go into a cave without training.

Interesting.

 

[DevonDiver]

Interesting.

In the same way a monkey might play with iPad?

What isn't clear? I'd like to help you understand... lead you by the hand into the light of clarification, as it were...

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

In the same way a monkey might play with iPad?

What isn't clear. I'd like to help you understand... lead you by the hand into the light of clarification, as it were...

You have been as clear as you have been insulting. I require no further explanations. Thanks for asking.