I have a question, do cave divers make better wreck divers, or do wreck divers make better cave divers? And why?
Printable View
I have a question, do cave divers make better wreck divers, or do wreck divers make better cave divers? And why?
This could be a hotly debated question. Many potential wreck divers get their training as cave divers since the training can be a little less dynamic-less variable current and visibility,not to mention being carried off into the big pond by current. The date eludes me but there was the Doria Expedition that was held that had mostly cave divers on the trip. The cave divers used their techniques for reels and continuous guideline versus the use of progressive penetration. The end result was the cave divers got further back than many of the seasoned veterans and scooped a lot of the artifacts. This was not well received due to the use of line being questionable around sharp metal,and the didn't "pay their dues".
The reason why the wreck divers didn't like the reel was it allowed for people who were brand new to a wreak just to go inside without surveying the wreck or taking alot of dives to really learn the layout.
Caves and wrecks are two different animals. Yes the training is similiar and many wreck divers also cave dive and vice versa, but to say that cave divers would make better wreck divers and vice versa is just speculation. Cave Diving doesn't better prepare you for wreck diving. More wreck diving prepares you for that.
"Team Doria '91." Chapter Five of The Last Dive. Chris and Chrissy Rouse, Bernie Chowdhury, Steve Berman, a few others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Jessop
My copy's somewhere, not around here apparently.
I do use some of the same techniques in wreck diving that I do in cave diving. However, I feel they are two differant animals when you compare the cave and wreck side by side.
It can be agreed upon by many (I hope) that buoyancy, fin control, kick technique are pretty universal when in cave or wreck. I think a big differance is equipment.
I am not going to carry a crowbar or hammer into a cave. However, I would consider them in a wreck not just due to artifacts but for safety. I think a crowbar and hammer could be a good...oh crap tool in the right situation.
When laying line in a cave you do have to be careful where you lay in ref. to sharp rocks, line traps and so on. In a wreck you have sharp metal & it can cut line faster (in most cases) so I do more tie offs in a wreck and try to avoid my line running over a piece of metal.
As far as wreck diver being better than a cave diver or the other way around.... No...each is its own skill set, but one can do the other but as said above the only way to be "better" is to do more of each.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slüdge
Thank you I was too lazy to look it up. Steve always had the artifacts he retrieved on display at his house from that trip. There was some pretty fabulous stuff.
I think the difference between wreck and cave divers was much greater back in the day. I think many wreck and cave divers in today's environment use many of the same skills and techniques. The old school wreck divers for the most part were not cave trained and approached things quite differently. Today, many if not most of the younger wreck divers are also cave trained and utilize many of the cave techniques in the wrecks. Sure there are some obvious differences between the two, but for the most part, the similarities are somewhat minor compared to 25-30 years ago.
Just my $.02,
Randy
now I don't know much about wreck diving, but (I may be completely wrong) no matter how well you know a wreck's layout if you are in a zero viz siltout without a line to follow how are you going to get out? it seems to me to be very dangerous and I don't understand how the progressive penetration thing works if you can't see anything.
I took Cavern and Intro to improve my wreck skills and much too my surprise and maybe even horror I discovered I really don't care whether I dive wrecks again or not - caves are so much better.
I agree that the differences in technique are less now than in the past, at least in the newer brand of wreck diver, but there are still differences in attitude. Cave divers are (or in some cases pretend to be) much more conservation oriented for the simple reason that caves are clearly a non renewable resource.
To some extent you see that same attitude in many Great Lakes wreck divers, but in my experience mid atlantic and north east wreck divers have struck me as being a lot more about artifact recovery with no real regard to conservation. The argument being that the sea is rapidly deteriorating wrecks so get it while you can - an argument that is not completely incorrect but more or less ignores that nature and warfare are not putting near as many wrecks on the bottom as in the past and that tearing into a wreck with a hammer and a crowbar removes concretions, tears metal and in general accellerates corrosion and the collapse of the wreck.
And I think that affects the divers approach to diving. The average cave divers is all about precision and the goal is, or should be, zero impact on the cave. A wreck diver on the other hand conducts the dive much differently and coming out covered in rust is not an issue as would be the case of a cave diver coming out of a cave covered in clay.
Not that it is an absolute. When I dive someplace like Cow Spring and see white chips from damage to an otherwise pristine black wall or ceiling some where way the hell off the line, I have to ask myself what that idiot thought he or she was doing. I'd like to think a cave diver is less inclined to do things like that than a wreck diver, but with all the marks in cave floors, walls and ceilings and the uneccesary contact I see divers making, I have to wonder about that.
The four common overhead environments for a technical scuba diver are:
1. Ice
2. Decompression Ceiling
3. Shipwreck including light penetration zones
4. Cave including cavern zone
Each one of these four environments has its own challenges and dangers. While many "big picture" elements of technical diving may be applied to each discipline by a skilled technical overhead diver, the "small picture" techniques are what will determine the level of artistry, familiarity, proficiency, and knowledge a diver has relating to a certain discipline. No one of these is necessarily more difficult or more challenging than another and mastery of one doesn't necessarily mean mastery of another.
Of the four common overhead disciplines, cave and wreck diving have the most similarities, hence the question posed to start this thread and the on-going debate.
Looking at "old school" training for wreck and cave diving, cave divers would probably make more proficient wreck divers because of their mastery over basic trim, buoyancy and propulsion techniques that many wreck divers rarely possessed.
However, the "new school" approach to overhead training finds many entry level technical divers completing various "intro to tech" type courses such as those run by GUE, NAUI, UTD, PDIC, TDI and others. Students of these programs learn trim, buoyancy, propulsion, team techniques, gas management, reel and line work that will allow them to enter cave or wreck training with a high level of proficiency which was once usually only held by cave divers.
It is not uncommon to find wreck divers who have never been in a cave having better mastery of trim, buoyancy and propulsion than many experienced cave divers including some cave instructors.
While skills like trim, buoyancy and propulsion are certainly desirable to maximize diver comfort, proficiency, safety and protect the environment from the diver as well as the diver from the environment, both caves and wrecks present enough unique challenges to navigation, team procedures, diver safety and environmental protection that many divers who are experienced in both are beginning to agree that cave divers shouldn't feel prepared to dive wrecks any more than wreck divers should feel prepared to dive caves.
Caves and wrecks, depending upon their location, depth, and physical features have varying levels of forgiveness. A cave diver might be able to safely dive one wreck, but would be in grave danger in another with little prior wreck experience. A wreck diver might get away with diving one cave without training, yet be killed in another. Experience in each environment, progressive penetration in each environment, and training for each environment is important for safety and proficiency.
However, of the two disciplines, I think that cave diving often causes the cave diver to be more mentally engaged in the nuances and small picture artistry of the sport. Cave divers tend to obsess over minute details of equipment streamlining, configuration, and such much more than wreck divers.
I think all things being equal, in the majority of cases, experienced cave divers could more easily adapt and begin to master wreck diving than the majority of wreck divers could begin to master cave diving given a similar time table for training and experience. For this reason, IMHO, cave divers would make better wreck divers.
For starters, Trace says a lot and says it eloquently. Well written, sir.
My own experience covers old time wreck diving, contemporary wreck diving, and cave diving since 1993. I came out of the NJ wreck diving school, doing lots of that between 1968 and 1998, much less since then because I started concentrating on Great Lakes wrecks and cave diving in 1993. I had 15 years of wreck diving under my belt when a friend convinced me to try a cave class because, "it would improve my penetration techniques". I had cavern and intro with Bird, JJ, and Berman team teaching. I lost all of my wreck diver cockiness on morning #1, dropped back to the bottom of the learning curve, and never looked back. I completed full cave with Berman, as well as trimix. In fact, Steve took me to Diepolder, Eagles Nest, and the Ozark in the same week for my trimix class so we mixed up the wreck and cave diving right from the get go. From that perspective, I took everything I learned in cave and applied it to wreck diving up this way and elsewhere. In those days, cave training and experience brought an excellent perspective to wreck diving and I recommended that route to a lot of folks. The real advantage that cave instructors, students, and divers have over wreckers was (and is) the amount of time they could spend in the overhead cultivating personal skills and comfort. The logistics are simply easier (picnic table versus a rocking boat and limited bottom time that all costs a lot of $). So I still recommend cave training as useful to the aspiring wreck penetration diver, but it is no longer really necessary. It is clear ro me that the cave community ultimately influenced a large part of the wreck community and that is evident in the wreck penetration training available today. I think the availability of specific wreck and cave training is a real step forward. The two disiplines share many similar techniques and approaches. The two types of diving are very different too and divers need to learn the specifics of each. I do not think one type of training/diving prepares a diver better than the other one for either cave or wreck. They certainly compliment one another, but are entirely different beasts.
One last thought - question: which type of diving do you folks thionk is more "dangerous", cave or wreck. Both offer unique hazards and training in these disiplines is all about hazard management. It would be fun to hear your take on that. My vote is that wreck is more hazardous. I certainly earn my gray hairs teaching wreck penetration, especially on the deep ones, but never feel as harrried when teaching cave diving. What's your take?
Chris
Well, I'm not an "Old Timer" at either but I've done enough of both to form a bit of an opinion. Personally I have found myself having to "solve problems" far more often in wrecks than in caves. I have had several entanglement issues in wrecks that involved having to cut my way free from deteriorating cables and wiring and from fishing lines. I've also had to confront dangerous marine animals inside wrecks. Ceiling perc from rusty structures have been more of a problem for me in wrecks than perc from cave ceilings have been. Of course, visibility in either environment can zero out very quickly for any number of reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Laughrey
I think the risk of navigational problems (getting lost) in caves can be more severe than in wrecks though. The main difference I've seen is that the configuration of cave interiors is very chaotic and generally lacks any geometric regularity. You can swim into a cave passage and then turn around to look behind you and it usually looks completely different than what you saw going in. In most wrecks I've been in though, a room you just went through looks pretty much like you'd expect it to when you look back into it. I suppose this is why progressive penetration can work for many wreck divers while it's virtually suicidal in caves. Since I use reels in both, I've had no problems with that issue either way so far, but all other things being equal I feel much more comfortable in caves even though the penetration distances are many times further.
Chris,
I'm glad you mentioned that cave divers often are able to spend much more time in the penetration environment. Caves certainly give divers ample time to build the swimming and buoyancy skills needed for low impact diving. Such experience, of course, can successfully be added to the toolbox of wreck techniques.
To answer Chris' question about which environment is more "dangerous," I'll say that wreck diving is more dangerous than cave diving.
Just a few reasons:
1) Training - there are more opportunities for untrained divers to penetrate shipwrecks than for untrained divers to penetrate caves. Good cave training is also more easily found and accomplished than wreck penetration training. Cave instructor quality is less of an unknown to the diving community than wreck instructor quality. Weather rarely affects the completion of cave courses, but students can become repeatedly blown out by the weather in attempts to complete a wreck class depending upon the region. Cave diving has become more refined and most instructors teach very similar techniques. Wreck diving philosophies are far more varied.
2) Depth - there are far more opportunities to pursue deeper shipwrecks world-wide than deep caves. Think about the number of deep caves in the world and about how those doving them quickly begin to figure out how to "dive the cave" for each one concerned. The world is loaded with shipwrecks from inches to miles deep. As technology improves, wreck divers can pursue more wrecks at the extreme than caves at the extreme. Caves are slow to change their physical features while the wreck you know like the back of your hand can completely change after a storm. Wrecks deteriorate and decks and bulkheads can twist or collapse. Divers may have a false sense of security thinking they know a wreck's interior.
3) False sense of security - Many aspects of wreck diving lure divers into a false sense of security. Daylight streams into many wreck interiors that could easily become silted. Bubbles from open ciurcuit scuba often have more effect on visibility in wrecks than in most caves. Even a little penetration or a swim through may lead to disaster and more divers are willing to cut corners on safety and dive beyond theire skill level in wrecks than in caves. With most caves, once you are out of the cave, you are usually close to the surface and support if you need it. Once out of a wreck, you may still have a couple hundred feet or more of deco ceiling.
4) More human made hazards - Caves normally just have guidelines to worry about when it comes to hazards human place. Poorly placed lines, incorrect arrows or poorly staged bottles and scooters might temporarily trick or snare a cave diver, but wrecks have everything from cargo nets, fishing, nets, monofilament line, to explosives as well as guidelines and placed equipment to watch out for during dives.
5) Visibility - Caves usually offer better vis than wrecks and even when silted are more easily negotiated and buddies more easily reunited than in wrecks.
6) Goal oriented diving? - It could be that wreck diving may foster more goal-oriented dives than cave dives due to artifact fever? I don't have the answer to this. Do you think wrecks or caves lead to more goal-oriented dives? I'm betting wrecks.
7) Marine life - Divers have a greater opportunity to meet stingers and biters on a wreck dive than a cave dive.
8) Boat traffic - Most cave divers could be run over by a canoe, kayak or tube. On a bad day a drunken powerboater mioght be near a favorite cave entrance. Wreck divers could be run over by just about anything under sail, power or paddle.
9) Dive buddies - Cave diving buddies are often better trained and are more familiar with one another's gear than wreck diving buddies. They are also more familiar with procedures and have more opportunities to practice S-drills, valves drills, and such prior to dives. Wreck divers tend to be less familiar with one another's gear, less standardized and less prone to practice.
10) Surface support and topside challenges - pitching and rolling boat decks and ladders, busier highways and roads leading to marinas and ports, distance divers need to haul equipment from vehicles to boats compared to picnic tables, all present challenges to life and limb.
for a few posters who mention caves seem " more predictable"/ less dangerous " than wrecks..is this based on caves in a particular area>?
I think of Russians diving under ice into gypsum caves or Nordic cave divers doing the same...some system high in the Rocky Mountains/Swiss Alps etc.. and wonder how much easier those places are in comparison.
just a discussion point
What can you tell me about cave diving in the Rockies, specifically in Colorado. I've had a hard time finding any inforrmation. I'm moving there in late fall and figured I be flying to Florida, Mexico etc. a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Laughrey
Join the local NSS grotto