Question Wreck or Cave?

[Rob Traynham]

I have a question, do cave divers make better wreck divers, or do wreck divers make better cave divers? And why?

[Kelly Jessop]

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".

[ffdiver5597]

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.

[Sludge]

The date eludes me but there was the Doria Expedition that was held that had mostly cave divers on the trip.

"Team Doria '91." Chapter Five of The Last Dive. Chris and Chrissy Rouse, Bernie Chowdhury, Steve Berman, a few others.

My copy's somewhere, not around here apparently.

[MedCop]

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.

[Kelly Jessop]

"Team Doria '91." Chapter Five of The Last Dive. Chris and Chrissy Rouse, Bernie Chowdhury, Steve Berman, a few others.

My copy's somewhere, not around here apparently.

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.

[Randy Thornton]

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

[phillip1]

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.

[DA Aquamaster]

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.

[TraceMalin]

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.