25/02/2026
Turk is absolutely right that the PADI Wreck course shouldn't certify for overhead environment:
• It allows the same extent of pe*******on as their cavern course (40m/130ft linear from surface, light zone only, rule of 1/3rds gas) in a comparably risky environment. However, it has a far more meagre skill/protocol syllabus, none of the equipment or gas supply requirements, and doesn't require the instructor to be qualified at a higher level (cavern instructors must be, at least, certified cave divers).
• Recreational wreck and cavern training should be virtually identical, as they have virtually identical risks and require a virtually identical skillset.
• PADI Wreck instructors can self-certify to teach this speciality and are not required to have any formal, valid, wreck pe*******on training. They can literally make it up as they go along. This is a huge liability and dereliction of duty of care by the agency. They simply do not assure that instructors are competent to teach the course.
• Actual wreck pe*******on is optional on the course. If a student hasn't actually pe*****ted a wreck, they cannot be considered competent to pe*****te wrecks. As such, the certification CANNOT be considered valid for pe*******on at face value.
• One solitary, short, (optional!) pe*******on dive is nowhere near enough experience to state that a diver can be anywhere near competent inside a wreck. It's a complex environment with multiple unique risks; it takes substantial time to acclimate and perform effectively.
Having taught wreck diving at recreational and technical levels as my primary focus for over 20 years, including for PADI, I could never accept their certification at face value as proof of competency for wreck pe*******on. There are FAR better and safer courses available to recreational divers; e.g. the RAID and TDI Advanced Wreck courses.
https://youtu.be/rih9LvKbwQ0?si=IR_t6_-zaNgyLcTm
