Welcome to ScubaBoard, an online scuba diving forum community where you can join over 205,000 divers from around the world discussing all things related to Scuba Diving. To gain full access to ScubaBoard (and make this large box go away) you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
Participate in over 500 dive topic forums and browse from over 5,500,000 posts.
Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
Post your own photos or view from well over 100,000 user submitted images.
Gain access to our free classifieds marketplace to buy, sell and trade gear, travel and services.
Use the calendar to organize your events and enroll in other members' events.
All this and much more is available to you absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact the ScubaBoard Support Team.
There are already a number of threads already on this subject, some with pix posted. My two cents worth:
I just heard, based on reports from side-scan sonar and divers, the flight deck is resting in 150 ft of water but the tower is at 60 ft. What happened to the calculations? I thought the flight deck was supposed to be at 130 ft. However, I did just read that at least a portion of the flight deck may be at that depth.
My guess is that the increased depth will (or should) greatly limit the number of recreational divers who will be interested in diving this wreck. If true, projected revenues from increased tourism to the area may not meet expectations. If false, I'd expect more divers to be heading for the nearest chamber.
Disclaimer: I'm not a big fan of wrecks, especially new ones (without growth) that are below rec limits.
Sinking her 26 miles off shore had me scratching my head, too.
By all acounts from people who have been on her decks, the flight deck is at about 130-135 fsw.The top of the islnd is at about 60 fsw.
The reason she is where she is is 2 fold.
1.If she were any shallower her bridge would be a hazzard to navagation and the Army Corp of Enginneers who must also sign off on the sinking mandates that there be at least 55 fsw over the top of the wreck.That means sink her a little deeper or remove her bridge.Moving her was cheaper and in the end there is something to see with the bridge stiill attached.
2.It was the fisherman (not diving community) who ultimatley (this was on another post on the board) helped get the carrier to where it is.Unfortunately they dont have a depth restriction like divers do.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
