Subic Bay - 17th Jul - 2 divers missing on USS New York

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

////So you need some one to explain to you the definition of safety line in wreck diving. No wonder you were so ignorant on the idea of entering somewhere of near zero vis!!!!! I didn't have a choice!! Unlike some certain MF who set on a comfy chair with nothing to do but fantasizing. Life is so easy, isn't it?

There are other ways to retrieve the line BUT I am NOT going to disclose it. HK Standard would be more than happy to know it as well.

BTW, write what ever you want BUT don't expect an answer.////

Above there is the new reply from the survior on the HK forum, for your reference.
 
Yeah, from reading Chow's further posts on the HKdivers forum, he is now very definitive that it was a safety line. Which means he wasn't removing an actual guide/jump line upon exit.

The fact that Chow had to deploy a safety line to exit the wreck does, in turn, seem to indicate that either:

1) The team weren't using a primary guideline.
2) The team lost the primary guideline they were using.

Otherwise, why didn't Chow just exit on the guideline he entered on?
 
Yeah, from reading Chow's further posts on the HKdivers forum, he is now very definitive that it was a safety line. Which means he wasn't removing an actual guide/jump line upon exit.

The fact that Chow had to deploy a safety line to exit the wreck does, in turn, seem to indicate that either:

1) The team weren't using a primary guideline.
2) The team lost the primary guideline they were using.

Otherwise, why didn't Chow just exit on the guideline he entered on?

If engine room is not the planned target for them, I believe they do not need a guideline because Steve is very experienced there.

Also, I believe the zero vis is the result of some kicking. Because I was there 13-17, every afternoon I was in NY, and the vis is ok. Also, if it is zero vis when they went down there, they would definitely used the line or quit the dive.
 
If engine room is not the planned target for them, I believe they do not need a guideline because Steve is very experienced there.

Given that we are discussing a fatal accident, I am surprised you'd make a comment like that.

There obviously was a need....

Complacency can be a big factor in technical diving accidents. Believing that your experience or expertise in any way excuses you from following the approved and proven safety protocols is a recipe for disaster.

Also, I believe the zero vis is the result of some kicking.

Deploying a guideline on a penetration isn't dictated by how the visibility is at the start of the dive. It's run as a precaution, based upon the risk that visibility may not remain for the duration of the penetration.

Technical penetration is about being prepared for all reasonable eventualities - and that means consideration that visibility may be reduced by the passage of divers.

This requirement, and the principle behind it, is covered in recreational level wreck training. Technical wreck penetration demands stricter procedures; it isn't a license to ignore these basics in the assumption that you are now 'too good to worry about them'.

Because I was there 13-17, every afternoon I was in NY, and the vis is ok. Also, if it is zero vis when they went down there, they would definitely used the line or quit the dive.

I've dived the USS NY hundreds of times (I work in Subic Bay, as an instructor). I deploy a line for any penetration that is likely to run into a confined space, or take me anywhere near the silt. You can pass through the gun deck without a line; but that involves staying well away from the bottom (at least two body lengths clear of the bottom) and is determined by the ambient light penetrating the deck from overhead and side hatches etc.

The gun deck on USS New York is long, thin and deep. Divers with suitable buoyancy control (if not, then they shouldn't be inside at all) can progress safely, with little risk of silting, through a well lit, entanglement free penetration. Diving through the deck in mid-water is not the same as diving along the silty bottom. If, for any reason, divers needed to go near the bottom (dropped equipment etc), then they should have the discipline to re-assess the circumstances and then apply the proper procedures. That would mean going to the nearest exit and re-entering whilst deploying a line.

When conducting a risk assessment for wreck penetration, you don't base it on how the conditions are....you base it on how the conditions could be.


-------------

Note:
These are generic discussion points relating to technical wreck diving. I'm not, in any way, making assumptions about what may, or may not, have happened on the incident discussed in this thread.

When conducting the incident analysis, it's important to try and determine whether the deaths were caused by;

A) A failure of the divers involved to properly apply existing procedures.

B) A failure of existing procedures to protect the divers involved.

In that respect; there should be no assumptions about the relative 'experience' of the divers. We should be considering what actually happened against the criteria of what should have happened. Did they apply their training? If not, then the benefit of that training is null and void. If all the drills, skills and procedures were followed effectively, then we can develop the analysis into how those procedures may have failed to protect Steve and Tin.
 
Last edited:
Technically and theoretically correct, but in a dark, silted environment, theory may not be enough. A tortuous path, inside a wreck, with good viz is one thing; doing it backwards with poor viz isn't easy. And if one diver "went back in" looking for the other, his attention to all matters...who he was looking for and unraveling a difficult entry, after sundown, might have been hard to accomplish.
[/CODE]
If you can get in, you can get out.
 
Given that we are discussing a fatal accident, I am surprised you'd make a comment like that.

There obviously was a need....

Complacency can be a big factor in technical diving accidents. Believing that your experience or expertise in any way excuses you from following the approved and proven safety protocols is a recipe for disaster.
Considering that English is not my native tongue, sometimes I can not express what I mean, sorry for that.

I fully agree with Devon that any penetration of NY except a certain area of the gun deck (which has huge hatches on the top and side) must be conducted with a guideline, that that is exactly what I myself would do. For a coast-to-coast penetration in the Gun deck would be another issue which also need lines always.

Some information from the rescue team:

1. HK victim comes with no mask

2. Steve has no air in his doubles nor in his BC
 
Technically and theoretically correct, but in a dark, silted environment, theory may not be enough. A tortuous path, inside a wreck, with good viz is one thing; doing it backwards with poor viz isn't easy. And if one diver "went back in" looking for the other, his attention to all matters...who he was looking for and unraveling a difficult entry, after sundown, might have been hard to accomplish.
[/CODE]

My post was an absolute with no speculation. We do not know if it was silted out or not. The post I responded to was written as an absolute and I responded in kind. Otherwise, you are correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
what causes zero visibility? or lurky water? does strong wave cause water to become cloudy? anyone?
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom