Question Wreck or Cave?

[Chris Laughrey]

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

[Alan Garrett]

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.
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.

[TraceMalin]

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.

[Arnold Mesiser]

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

[Chris Laughrey]

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.

[Arnold Mesiser]

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.

Join the local NSS grotto