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? I
f 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.
