Hi Genesis-
While there was definitely some interesting politics going on, I am fairly certain that the siting of the carrier off Pensacola is not the best option for divers. The Escambia crew basically washed their hands of the diving aspects for the carrier, and are pushing this as an artificial reef for fishing. They could care less about divers, and instead only see the carrier as a red snapper producing machine for their fishing community. They contorted DAN data in regards to safety, and did not mention that some of the local charter vessels only have a 20-mile ticket, and thus could not currently run to the site, which is 23 miles from Pensacola Pass, and 33 miles from Destin Pass. Having conducted some very remote dives, some as far as 140 miles offshore, the siting off Pensacola does not bother me personally in the least. However, your average diver, or novice diver, will be impacted by the roughly two-hour trip, especially on a slow, rolling cattle boat. What bothers me is the lack of good charter operations in the area.
Having tried to charter numerous boats to conduct dives off the Panhandle, it is obvious that the infrastructure is not very strong, and the dive operations not very receptive to modern diving practices (i.e., technical diving). In fact, one operation basically stated at the FMRI meeting that they would limit divers to 100fsw and keep divers on the carrier island.
South Florida should not necessarily be penalized by having more artificial reefs because they have active reefing programs. In fact, because there are other artificial reefs in the vicinity of the proposed SFL sinking location, it would minimize user conflict with fishermen. Not so for the Pensacola site, and I would expect some serious issues up there. In fact, one of the commissioners stated that "he is tired of seeing divers get all these reefs" and that fisherman pay for licenses while divers don't pay for anything! Expanding on the commissioners, the vote was 4-2; guess where the 4 commissioners that voted for NW Florida hail from...
The bottom line is the commission should have decided what the most important goal of this reef would be -- fishing or diving. If they had done that, the decision would have been simple. Further, if they made the decision to base it on economics, it would have also been simple, as placing it off SFL would have massive economic benefits versus the limited benefits it will produce for SFL. Regarding maritime history -- why does proximity play a role in promoting maritime history? I am sympathetic to Pensacola and the rich heritage it has. However, I would counter that if you really want to educate the public, or for people to learn about the ORISKANY and naval aviation, placing it off SFL would have a much larger impact. With exponentially more divers visiting her off SFl versus NWFL, more people would learn about the vessel and USN aviation. Do you think a fisherman really cares about what they are fishing on as long as it produces fish?
Regardless, this will be the most accessible aircraft carrier dive in the world. It is a shame that the big picture was not looked at, instead of everyone trying to protect their own regional interests.