Reports on this vary considerably. The original ones, which I saw while I
was in Key West when they died, indicated that they had lines, a plan and
stage tanks. It did not mention strobes.
Subsequent information suggested less planning and no lines. Gas planning
was pretty clearly a contributing factor.
The most recent information I've seen, in today's Ft. Lauderdale News,
indicates that they did not have lines but makes it unlikely that a silt out
was an immediate cause. One of the divers, the one that survived, tried to
get the other three to follow him out. Apparently, he was the only one that
had it right. One of the other three eventually tried the same route. His
attempt, grabbing one and trying to get the others to follow argues against
a silt out, but it's not a certainty either way.
The bottom line is, three divers who should have been able to plan and
execute such a dive safely, didn't, and died as a result.
As for the issue of running lines into a wreck, that's been a debate in the
past. Sure rusty metal can cut lines, but even a cut line has a higher
probability of being useful than no line at all.
Those that used to suggest that lines were not as appropriate for wrecks as
they are for caves promoted the idea of progressive penetration, learning
each part of a wreck thoroughly enough to get out in any conditions, before
moving to the next. It's clear that alternative was not utilzed.
Lee
> As for the issue of running lines into a wreck, that's been a debate
> in the past. Sure rusty metal can cut lines, but even a cut line has
> a higher probability of being useful than no line at all.
Exactly.
You don't just play out line and let it float. Proper deployment means
you wrap it onto something solid every so often. If, on the way out, you
find the line is cut, you tie off and search for the other end of the
cut line. By having tied the line down at intervals, you know how far
you'll have to go to find it.
Of course, you need to have enough breathing gas to be able to do this,
including gas for deco.
All part of proper contingency planning.
> Those that used to suggest that lines were not as appropriate for
> wrecks as they are for caves promoted the idea of progressive
> penetration, learning each part of a wreck thoroughly enough to get
> out in any conditions, before moving to the next.
I have to wonder if those who feel that way have actually ever tried
using a line.
I _have_ seen lots of divers just play it out and let it float, and I
can easily see why they might decide its not appropriate, or even
dangerous.
> It's clear that alternative was not utilzed.
Probably true, but it isn't clear to me how many times in the past they
may have been to this wreck. The reports I've read say they did one dive
the day before, but do not say if that was a prep/setup dive.
IMO, underwater navigation isn't an either-or thing. You should always
use multiple methods. Combining a line with knowledge of the wreck is
going to be safer than either alone.

Signature
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net
Lee Bell - 21 Mar 2007 14:15 GMT
>> As for the issue of running lines into a wreck, that's been a debate
>> in the past. Sure rusty metal can cut lines, but even a cut line has
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> cut line. By having tied the line down at intervals, you know how far
> you'll have to go to find it.
That's my opinion and how I've handled it in the past, but I'm still not an
expert.
>> Those that used to suggest that lines were not as appropriate for
>> wrecks as they are for caves promoted the idea of progressive
>> penetration, learning each part of a wreck thoroughly enough to get
>> out in any conditions, before moving to the next.
> I have to wonder if those who feel that way have actually ever tried
> using a line.
Interesting question. Last time I saw the discussion, they were all up in
NJ, more or less where the three divers that died come from. No telling if
there is a link there, but it sure sounds like there might be.
>> It's clear that alternative was not utilzed.
> Probably true, but it isn't clear to me how many times in the past they
> may have been to this wreck. The reports I've read say they did one dive
> the day before, but do not say if that was a prep/setup dive.
It's fairly clear to me. If they had done what the NJ wreck divers used to
recommend, they would have known how to get out, even in near zero
visibility.
> IMO, underwater navigation isn't an either-or thing. You should always
> use multiple methods. Combining a line with knowledge of the wreck is
> going to be safer than either alone.
Sounds like a good idea to me. I don't think I've ever planned a wreck
penetration in detail. It's always been a matter of trying it and seeing
how it worked out. I use a continuous line and, assuming a deco dive, a
rule of thirds or even fourths for gas other than what I'll need for deco.
Deco gas is never a part of my bottom time gas plan except, of course, that
my bottom time determines how much I'll need and how much extra I'll have.
I am not a fan of leaving stage tanks along the way for use as I exit.
That's partly because I don't necessarily know I'll come out the way I went
in, but it's also partly because gas that is not with me is not availble if
there is a problem. Even an inappropriate gas may make the difference
between life and death. The more options I have, even if some are not good
ones, the better I like it.
Lee