kwhkg
Contributor
following, unconfirmed articl from today's Hong Kong Standard
Diver blames himself for war-wreck deaths - The Standard
Diver blames himself for war-wreck deaths - The Standard
Subic Bay - 17th Jul - 2 divers missing on USS New York
- Thread starter DevonDiver
- Start date
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
OP
DevonDiver
N/A
The report added by kwhkg may have been referring this this thread on the hkdiver.com forum:
hkdiver.com •
It's not clear whether he is referring to removing a (safety) line which he had deployed to exit the wreck, or whether he is referring to a (jump) line that the team had laid on entry and should have returned upon.
In the event of visibility loss plus team separation, lost buddy or lost line, it is generally a standard procedure to leave all lines in place until the entire team is accounted for outside the wreck.
Also not clear whether "main shot line" referrers to the descent line, or the permanent guideline inside the wreck. As described in a previous post - divers need to tie-off outside and 'jump' onto the permanent line (which starts just inside the wreck)....and/or might deploy further guideline from the end of the permanent line, depending on where they are exploring.
hkdiver.com •
[h=3]Re: Subic Bay Accident[/h]由 flchow » 週三 7月 20, 2011 9:03 am
The only regret that I have from this dive is:
I should not had removed the jump line which helped me to feel my way out when I was separated from my buddies as well as completely lost with near ZERO visibility. I should had ran the line all the way back to the tie-off point of the main shot line. My buddies might came across this line!!!!
[h=3]Re: Subic Bay Accident[/h]
Engine room plays no part in the dive!!!
It's not clear whether he is referring to removing a (safety) line which he had deployed to exit the wreck, or whether he is referring to a (jump) line that the team had laid on entry and should have returned upon.
In the event of visibility loss plus team separation, lost buddy or lost line, it is generally a standard procedure to leave all lines in place until the entire team is accounted for outside the wreck.
Also not clear whether "main shot line" referrers to the descent line, or the permanent guideline inside the wreck. As described in a previous post - divers need to tie-off outside and 'jump' onto the permanent line (which starts just inside the wreck)....and/or might deploy further guideline from the end of the permanent line, depending on where they are exploring.
Last edited:
Ayisha
Contributor
Andy, that of course is absolutely true and there have certainly been times when lines or markers have been removed prematurely and someone could not find their way out.
How is it that if Mr. Chow ran the line, that he would be the first one out and removed his line? It sounded like they were together when they were initially exiting the wreck from this excerpt of a news article in post #13:
bold addedarticle:
It sounds like the three of them were together when they were leaving the wreck, so the line had already been removed as they exited as one would expect. But the two deceased divers then went back in and there was no line laid... Could that be possible?
OP
DevonDiver
N/A
I'm not sure, because the reports are very contradictory.
On the forum entry, he says that they were in near zero visibility (how would he see Tin stop and Steve return for him?). A technical wreck diver is unlikely to use such terminology lightly - and I can't see a diver with that experience level using the term to describe the 'low' visibility that was present outside the wreck.
It also states that they were "separated". Separated has a different meaning to me, in the context of Adv Wreck diving; it means 'not in visual or tactile contact'.
There aren't any circumstances where a team of technical wreck divers should willingly allow themselves to be 'separated' whilst inside a wreck.
Thinking about how the surviving diver describes "removing the jump line" on exit... this doesn't sound like he was using his own safety reel to find his way out. Otherwise, how would he remove it? He would have tied off inside the wreck and then reeled his way out. That would have left the line tied off inside the wreck.
If he was reeling out of the wreck, then the line must have been tied off outside - which may indicate that the surviving diver removed the team's jump line (linking the start of the perm guideline to the tie-off outside of the wreck). It wouldn't be a standard procedure for the team to deploy more than one line into the wreck..
This area (start of perm line to the exit, inside the gun deck) is normally not too bad for silt - but if the team silted out inside one of the corridors, then it is possible that the silt could have mushroomed out of the confined area and decreased visibility throughout the bottom of the gun deck. That said, the gun deck is very open-plan... and there is unimpeded access right up to the starboard (shallow) hull of the ship (where there are exits).
When diving that wreck, I've always briefed divers to ascend within the gun deck in the event of a silt-out. Unless, of course, they were still in a corridor/shaft... or were entangled... or too disorientated to ascend...
However, I don't think it's too wise to put a great emphasis on the technical accuracy of the news reports. Likewise, language difficulties may also account for some discrepancies on the behalf of the third diver's forum entries.
It'd be interesting to know what the team's general gas levels were when they split. There was mention that they'd only be in for "10 minutes" when the surviving diver exited...and they were diving doubles.
It'd be interesting to know why the third diver ended his dive and surfaced, when he still had team mates inside the wreck. It's a judgement call whether to re-enter a wreck and search - but the minimum response would usually be to wait outside the exit, at the line tie-off. Unless his air was low? How was his air so low,at this stage of the dive? Rule of Thirds should have dictated that he had plenty of reserve...
It'd also be interesting to have a clear description from the surviving diver - their route and what the original dive plan had been (It's not likely that they planned to split the team), what their turn-points were, if their exit was an abort, or if it was planned etc.
The only real clue/s will come from any reports emerging from the recovery operation... where they were found, what equipment/lines were available to them and what their gas was etc.
On the forum entry, he says that they were in near zero visibility (how would he see Tin stop and Steve return for him?). A technical wreck diver is unlikely to use such terminology lightly - and I can't see a diver with that experience level using the term to describe the 'low' visibility that was present outside the wreck.
It also states that they were "separated". Separated has a different meaning to me, in the context of Adv Wreck diving; it means 'not in visual or tactile contact'.
There aren't any circumstances where a team of technical wreck divers should willingly allow themselves to be 'separated' whilst inside a wreck.
Thinking about how the surviving diver describes "removing the jump line" on exit... this doesn't sound like he was using his own safety reel to find his way out. Otherwise, how would he remove it? He would have tied off inside the wreck and then reeled his way out. That would have left the line tied off inside the wreck.
If he was reeling out of the wreck, then the line must have been tied off outside - which may indicate that the surviving diver removed the team's jump line (linking the start of the perm guideline to the tie-off outside of the wreck). It wouldn't be a standard procedure for the team to deploy more than one line into the wreck..
This area (start of perm line to the exit, inside the gun deck) is normally not too bad for silt - but if the team silted out inside one of the corridors, then it is possible that the silt could have mushroomed out of the confined area and decreased visibility throughout the bottom of the gun deck. That said, the gun deck is very open-plan... and there is unimpeded access right up to the starboard (shallow) hull of the ship (where there are exits).
When diving that wreck, I've always briefed divers to ascend within the gun deck in the event of a silt-out. Unless, of course, they were still in a corridor/shaft... or were entangled... or too disorientated to ascend...
However, I don't think it's too wise to put a great emphasis on the technical accuracy of the news reports. Likewise, language difficulties may also account for some discrepancies on the behalf of the third diver's forum entries.
It'd be interesting to know what the team's general gas levels were when they split. There was mention that they'd only be in for "10 minutes" when the surviving diver exited...and they were diving doubles.
It'd be interesting to know why the third diver ended his dive and surfaced, when he still had team mates inside the wreck. It's a judgement call whether to re-enter a wreck and search - but the minimum response would usually be to wait outside the exit, at the line tie-off. Unless his air was low? How was his air so low,at this stage of the dive? Rule of Thirds should have dictated that he had plenty of reserve...
It'd also be interesting to have a clear description from the surviving diver - their route and what the original dive plan had been (It's not likely that they planned to split the team), what their turn-points were, if their exit was an abort, or if it was planned etc.
The only real clue/s will come from any reports emerging from the recovery operation... where they were found, what equipment/lines were available to them and what their gas was etc.
martinskarin
Registered
Maybe a stupid question but as a newbie I need one thing clarified.
When diving without direct access to the surface like in this case, does'nt one always need to have back up of everything? Like 2 bottles each with first stage and second stage totally separate from each other? Is that what you call doubles?
And if that is the case, it would mean that if they where low one air on the first tank, they would still have another one and probably 40 min - 1h diving time at 25-30m depth but could not find the way back to the main line or any alternative exit?
Edit: Typo
OP
DevonDiver
N/A
Yes, it'd be a fair assumption that they were diving with manifolded/isolated doubles (see explanation HERE).
They should also have been using the 'Rule of Thirds' for their gas management; 1/3rd In - 1/3rd Out - 1/3rd Reserve
That said, if they were lost and disorientated, in zero viz, then there is the possibility that their breathing rate could sky-rocket....to a factor of 10 or more. Accelerated breathing rates in a panic state can have a truly horrifying impact on your air endurance.
It's also an assumption to think that one, or both, divers 'ran out of air'. Whilst logical, it's not the only possibility. In zero viz, in a confined space, with lots of entanglements, with the two divers unable to communicate and possibly obstructing/tangling eachother; losing a regulator could potentially be irretrievable.
There may also have been some type equipment failure/damage, leading to rapid gas loss. Severed reg hose. Valve, manifold or 1st stage damaged from an impact. Rolled-off valve. All things that are easy for a suitably qualified diver to deal with - but if you add zero viz and confined space to the scenario, can be a killer.
Again... it's impossible to do anything more than speculate from a multitude of possibilties without further information.
They should also have been using the 'Rule of Thirds' for their gas management; 1/3rd In - 1/3rd Out - 1/3rd Reserve
That said, if they were lost and disorientated, in zero viz, then there is the possibility that their breathing rate could sky-rocket....to a factor of 10 or more. Accelerated breathing rates in a panic state can have a truly horrifying impact on your air endurance.
It's also an assumption to think that one, or both, divers 'ran out of air'. Whilst logical, it's not the only possibility. In zero viz, in a confined space, with lots of entanglements, with the two divers unable to communicate and possibly obstructing/tangling eachother; losing a regulator could potentially be irretrievable.
There may also have been some type equipment failure/damage, leading to rapid gas loss. Severed reg hose. Valve, manifold or 1st stage damaged from an impact. Rolled-off valve. All things that are easy for a suitably qualified diver to deal with - but if you add zero viz and confined space to the scenario, can be a killer.
Again... it's impossible to do anything more than speculate from a multitude of possibilties without further information.
RikRaeder
Contributor
In one of the recovery photos, you can see Steve's doubles with manifold. Poster Rovic also mentioned above that he noted "two yellow scuba tanks." It seems that they were indeed diving doubles which Steve would certainly have used for a technical penetration but not for a gundeck swimthrough.
The surviving diver's assertion that "engine room plays no part of the dive," runs contrary to all of the reports on the divers' location upon recovery. True the reports were from local media, but they do seem to be based on the official word from the Freeport Maritime Security Chief who logically would be privy to the recovery efforts.
That the visiting diver was found first suggests that Steve was deeper into the wreck or in a harder to find spot.
I appreciate that the survivor must be feeling very horrible right now but it would be helpful if instead of vehemently denying all local reports he might correct them.
I agree that a lot of information is probably lost between the three languages going on here (Cantonese, English & Tagalog).
About two years ago, I swam the outside of the New York in about four meter visability and I recall thinking about how easily one could end up inside of the wreck and never know it as we swam along the deck forward of the fore turret. I saw a lot more of my guides fins then the wreck at that point, and that was just fine with me!
Mr. Chow's first post on the HK Diving forum stated that his first post was deleted because he "told the truth." Perhaps a Chinese speaking SB member could post there and extend to him an invitation to tell his story here in a non-censored, blame-free environment...
He speaks English, but the HK forum doesn't, otherwise I'd do so myself.
The surviving diver's assertion that "engine room plays no part of the dive," runs contrary to all of the reports on the divers' location upon recovery. True the reports were from local media, but they do seem to be based on the official word from the Freeport Maritime Security Chief who logically would be privy to the recovery efforts.
That the visiting diver was found first suggests that Steve was deeper into the wreck or in a harder to find spot.
I appreciate that the survivor must be feeling very horrible right now but it would be helpful if instead of vehemently denying all local reports he might correct them.
I agree that a lot of information is probably lost between the three languages going on here (Cantonese, English & Tagalog).
About two years ago, I swam the outside of the New York in about four meter visability and I recall thinking about how easily one could end up inside of the wreck and never know it as we swam along the deck forward of the fore turret. I saw a lot more of my guides fins then the wreck at that point, and that was just fine with me!
Mr. Chow's first post on the HK Diving forum stated that his first post was deleted because he "told the truth." Perhaps a Chinese speaking SB member could post there and extend to him an invitation to tell his story here in a non-censored, blame-free environment...
He speaks English, but the HK forum doesn't, otherwise I'd do so myself.
OP
DevonDiver
N/A
Depends. Whilst not a formal course, this still could have been a 'lite' practice dive. There are divers on the USS NY pretty much every day with technical kit - but not many of them are conducting technical penetrations.
The gun deck does provide a relatively benign training/familiarisation location.
As mentioned in previous posts; there are other technical penetrations other than the engine rooms.
I'm not sure if they were found together, but I get the impression they were. Tin was recovered just before dark. They went for Steve early in the morning. I think this may have been a safety/logistical issue for the recovery team, not doing the second recovery in the evening, rather than not having found Steve.n the three languages going on here (Cantonese, English & Tagalog).
That's a good idea. If anyone here frequents the HK forum, or is in a position to contact Chow, then please do invite him here. If he wants to tell his story, this thread will be fairly moderated and he will be protected from flamers.
The deleted post was on his attack on the press. I read it before it disappeared. He did not mince his words on them. Very colourful.
The "jump line" had now changed to "safety line"!!
Buddy separation, lost of contact with any guide line, completely lost inside the wreck. Felt his way out by attaching a safety line on a fixed place.
The "jump line" had now changed to "safety line"!!
Buddy separation, lost of contact with any guide line, completely lost inside the wreck. Felt his way out by attaching a safety line on a fixed place.
OP
DevonDiver
N/A
So how did he retrieve this line??
Similar threads
