Warplanes in Lake Washington

RDW · Post by **RDW** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:57 pm

Curt wrote:
"If the tail fell off as you suggest, the control cables and wiring going to the tail section would still be there and there would be damage to the tail from it falling off (like it was twisted).

The tail is also not currently located in an area that it should be if it indeed fell off. If it did fall off, then it should be right next to the fuselage with the tail lying on it's side or tail down. Right now it is several feet away and tail up. "

Curt, you 'ol wing-maggot, you may be on to something here. I must admit when I saw the tail it WAS hanging there. Elevator and rudder controls were visible as was the wiring. Back then it was dropped directly below the main fuselage. The rivets were quite obvious in their corroded state.
However...I must admit, the last dive I did on the PV-2 we did not dive the tail area much. It didn't occur to me that the tail was fully cut free and had been moved. We were attempting to get some photos of the nose guns. That was over five years ago. Curt, good thinking. Folks... That is why he is a pilot and I am just a lowly old Coastie sailor/diver type.

peo · Post by **peo** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:28 pm

RDW wrote:Curt, you 'ol wing-maggot, you may be on to something here. I must admit when I saw the tail it WAS hanging there. Elevator and rudder controls were visible as was the wiring. Back then it was dropped directly below the main fuselage. The rivets were quite obvious in their corroded state.
However...I must admit, the last dive I did on the PV-2 we did not dive the tail area much. It didn't occur to me that the tail was fully cut free and had been moved. We were attempting to get some photos of the nose guns. That was over five years ago. Curt, good thinking. Folks... That is why he is a pilot and I am just a lowly old Coastie sailor/diver type.

That's how I recall it too, and I wasn't in the PNW area before 2002, so I was kind of confused how I could remember the tail in a different position before.
It now begins to make more sense to me again. ;-)

mattwave · Post by **mattwave** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:32 am

Regarding the PV-2 tail section, we have been working very close with UAS in determining the cause of broken tail. So far, through several video sessions, cause and effect investigation, and specualtion, the tail was not removed my man and has fallen exactly where you might expect. As for anchor and shot damage I recommend that all divers who visit these wrecks takes caution not to disturb them. I have heard of fingers pointing to missing pieces of these wrecks, just to see the missing piece described laying next to the wreck in the silt.

Let's make sure that we preserve the privelage to dive these wrecks, it is debatable whether divers are tresspassing or not when they dive without clearance.
I ask all the divers on this forum, have you received the clearance to dive these wrecks?

There are some exciting projects in the works and some salvage attempts may be made in the future, but I don't think it will be the PB4 or PV2.
Let's hope discover adds these wrecks to their new series "Sinking Wings"

Grateful Diver · Post by **Grateful Diver** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:50 am

Matt, how does one go about getting clearance to dive one of the planes? I'm aware of organizations ... like SCRET ... who dive them regularly. I'm also aware that some of the "old-timers" have been diving them for years.

I have also heard disputed claims as to who is "authorized" to dive these planes and people who claim exclusive privilege to do so.

If someone were to invite me out to dive one of these planes, how do I go about ascertaining that we are doing so with the proper clearance?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

John Rawlings · Post by **John Rawlings** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:57 am

mattwave wrote: Let's make sure that we preserve the privelage to dive these wrecks, it is debatable whether divers are tresspassing or not when they dive without clearance.
I ask all the divers on this forum, have you received the clearance to dive these wrecks?

What the.....??????

What "debate" are you referring to?

Just what agency is it that has enough effrontery and insolence to claim to have the power to "clear" us to dive on these wrecks? The aircraft themselves may be owned by the US Navy, but the water surrounding them is not.

The last I heard this is still a free society. I can dive in public waters and so long as I do not damage or steal anything I need no "clearance" to do so.

- John

Curt McNamee · Post by **Curt McNamee** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:10 am

mattwave wrote:Regarding the PV-2 tail section, we have been working very close with UAS in determining the cause of broken tail. So far, through several video sessions, cause and effect investigation, and specualtion, the tail was not removed my man and has fallen exactly where you might expect. As for anchor and shot damage I recommend that all divers who visit these wrecks takes caution not to disturb them. I have heard of fingers pointing to missing pieces of these wrecks, just to see the missing piece described laying next to the wreck in the silt.

Let's make sure that we preserve the privelage to dive these wrecks, it is debatable whether divers are tresspassing or not when they dive without clearance.
I ask all the divers on this forum, have you received the clearance to dive these wrecks?

There are some exciting projects in the works and some salvage attempts may be made in the future, but I don't think it will be the PB4 or PV2.
Let's hope discover adds these wrecks to their new series "Sinking Wings"

If it takes a clearance to dive these wrecks then who are "you" getting it from and by what legal authority does this permission come from?.

mattwave · Post by **mattwave** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:10 am

why is it evertime I post, I offend someone?

Bob it is to my understanding SCRET has spent extensive time and effort making sure they go through the proper avenues.

Yes there are goverment agencies that can restrict unauthorized scuba diving in any body of water. I am not hear to explain the power of maritime law. If you would like examples I can give you better detail to how one group almost threatened future diving on the SS Governor, ofcourse by not getting the proper clearance.

The wrecks in Lk Wa are not as closely protected, but they are "in fact" protected. Yes the water around the wrecks are open to all diving, the minute pictures get published with people near enough to be considered "tresspassing", do you think the goverment agencies will not take notice?

Please do not flame up at me, I only have the diving public's interest in mind.

mattwave · Post by **mattwave** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:14 am

message removed

John Rawlings · Post by **John Rawlings** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:17 am

mattwave wrote:why is it evertime I post, I offend someone?

Yes there are goverment agencies that can restrict unauthorized scuba diving in any body of water. I am not hear to explain the power of maritime law. If you would like examples I can give you better detail to how one group almost threatened future diving on the SS Governor, ofcourse by not getting the proper clearance.

The wrecks in Lk Wa are not a closely protected, but they are "in fact" protected. Yes the water around the wrecks are open to all diving, the minute pictures get published with people near enough to be considered "tresspassing", do you think the goverment agencies will not take notice?

Please do not flame up at me, I only have the diving public's interest in mind.

Uh, Matt?

I've re-read the posts carefully and do not see where anyone flamed on you. personally, I just want to know WHO it is claiming to require clearance. If anyone is being flamed it would be that agency or person.

Your original post clearly stated that "clearance" was needed to dive these wrecks. I ask once again.....from whom?

- John

mattwave · Post by **mattwave** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:21 am

John Rawlings wrote:
mattwave wrote:why is it evertime I post, I offend someone?

Yes there are goverment agencies that can restrict unauthorized scuba diving in any body of water. I am not hear to explain the power of maritime law. If you would like examples I can give you better detail to how one group almost threatened future diving on the SS Governor, ofcourse by not getting the proper clearance.

The wrecks in Lk Wa are not a closely protected, but they are "in fact" protected. Yes the water around the wrecks are open to all diving, the minute pictures get published with people near enough to be considered "tresspassing", do you think the goverment agencies will not take notice?

Please do not flame up at me, I only have the diving public's interest in mind.
Uh, Matt?

I've re-read the posts carefully and do not see where anyone flamed on you. personally, I just want to know WHO it is claiming to require clearance. If anyone is being flamed it would be that agency or person.

Your original post clearly stated that "clearance" was needed to dive these wrecks. I ask once again.....from whom?

- John

I guess I misread your flaming emoticon.

Cocntact scret.org I am sure they will point you in the right direction.

Curt McNamee · Post by **Curt McNamee** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:24 am

mattwave wrote:Let me ask you Curt, were you adrift for hours after diving the Governor?
Did you get clearance from VTS and the Coast Guard?
Was there a security bulletin broadcasted beacuse of it.
Is the mess that was caused last year by the diver group in question not a good enough example.

Matt- You did not offend me, but you still did not answere my question. What authority are you getting permission from to dive the USN wrecks in Lake Washington.

You said on your post that we should all be getting permission to dive these wrecks, so I am just asking you who would that be and do you have factual information on their authority?

The Governor dive last year was with Port Hole Charters and I am sure that they had all the permission that they needed to do that dive. And no, I was not adrift for hours. And what mess are you reffering to!!!! and how does any of that play a role in you answereing my question????

Grateful Diver · Post by **Grateful Diver** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:33 am

mattwave wrote: Cocntact scret.org I am sure they will point you in the right direction.

... and I think that's where folks are going to run into resistance.

From SCRET'S website ... http://www.scret.org/Team.htm#diver ... it appears that the only people who would be given clearance to dive those wrecks would be those who are GUE certified.

I don't think the general diving public ... especially with such a large local tech diving community ... is going to want to see Lake Washington turned into the Northwest version of Wakulla Springs.

I've got GUE and nonGUE friends who dive these wrecks ... and some selfish interest in diving them myself ... would love to see some discussion and clarification that wouldn't result in claims, counterclaims, and massive pissing matches that divide the community along agency lines ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

John Rawlings · Post by **John Rawlings** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:34 am

mattwave wrote: Contact scret.org I am sure they will point you in the right direction.

So, are you saying that you don't really know? In researching the wrecks in Lake Washington I have found no reference to a requirement for clearance to dive in any of the articles I found or the interviews that I conducted.

I've seen you diving the plane wrecks.....has your team applied for and received "clearance" from some agency to do so? If so, I would personally appreciate knowing which agency.

If your point was that if the wrecks are not preserved, treated properly and with respect by divers some government agency might step in and require clearance to dive them....then I agree with you. If we don't take care of what we have our dives could be regulated in such a way and I would hate to see that happen.

Hee Hee Hee.....boy, did a bomb get thrown into this thread or what?! HA! For those of you reading through all this on the side-lines, I consider Matt a friend of mine and that this is merely a spirited discussion. For that matter.....Curt, Bob, Randy, Peo....all of them are on my compadre list as well!

- John

mattwave · Post by **mattwave** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:47 am

ahh the forum interpretations.
I just said contact scret maybe they will help you, I said let's preserve the wrecks by not drawing attention to them by taking photos of people compromising the line between visiting and tresspassing.
If you doubt that diving these wrecks could be compromised by not contacting the proper people and clearing your "intentions" through them, that is your right.
Are there certain protected wrecks on the hot plate right now, you better beleive it. Statements that divers are "Sure" of that have been made are in fact still in question.
Is there a dive site in the lake that requires special permission to dive, yes the I-90 bridge is such a circumstance.
If you are trying to discredit my statements, that is your right.
I appreciate John's experience and consider him a friend, his work can't be beat. As well as Bob and Randy are good friends, I just do not know the rest.

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:05 am

City permits required for diving in portions of Lake WA, etc.

http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/ ... HITOFF&f=G

John Rawlings · Post by **John Rawlings** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:28 am

So.....if I may paraphrase from all of the above posts:

1) At the present time there is no existing requirement from any government agency that divers must apply for clearance to dive any of the wrecks within Lake Washington, the exceptions being the areas around the floating bridges (due to security concerns) and "within three hundred (300) feet of the perimeter of the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration facility at Sand Point" as quoted from the Seattle Municipal Code posted above.

2) This situation of free access may not last if divers damage, vandalize or remove artifacts from the wrecks. If that is shown to be occurring governent agencies may, in fact, either step in to require permits/clearance or may close the wrecks off to diving entirely.

I would suggest that, since no one would like to see # 2 occur, that ALL divers, from ALL groups, clubs and agencies take special care not to damage or abuse these wrecks and make it known throughout the diving community that such behavior is not going to be tolerated and is illegal.

How does that flow for everyone?

- John

Curt McNamee · Post by **Curt McNamee** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:41 am

John Rawlings wrote:So.....if I may paraphrase from all of the above posts:

1) At the present time there is no existing requirement from any government agency that divers must apply for clearance to dive any of the wrecks within Lake Washington, the exceptions being the areas around the floating bridges (due to security concerns) and "within three hundred (300) feet of the perimeter of the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration facility at Sand Point" as quoted from the Seattle Municipal Code posted above.

2) This situation of free access may not last if divers damage, vandalize or remove artifacts from the wrecks. If that is shown to be occurring governent agencies may, in fact, either step in to require permits/clearance or may close the wrecks off to diving entirely.

I would suggest that, since no one would like to see # 2 occur, that ALL divers, from ALL groups, clubs and agencies take special care not to damage or abuse these wrecks and make it known throughout the diving community that such behavior is not going to be tolerated and is illegal.

How does that flow for everyone?

- John

Great job in your summary John and I am in complete agreement.

mattwave · Post by **mattwave** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:50 am

yes I agree with John, and as I might have misrepesented my intentions, as John has expressed the same intentions.

Dan is working today with the agency closely tied in to these wrecks, when they return I will clarify what regulations do exist in diving these wrecks, and will confirm that they request all divers are aware of the USN's strict protocol when visiting these wrecks.
They will be more than happy to explain the exact legal ramifications if a violation is discovered, which could bring John's point 2.

Curt McNamee · Post by **Curt McNamee** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:07 am

mattwave wrote:yes I agree with John, and as I might have misrepesented my intentions, as John has expressed the same intentions.

Dan is working today with the agency closely tied in to these wrecks, when they return I will clarify what regulations do exist in diving these wrecks, and will confirm that they request all divers are aware of the USN's strict protocol when visiting these wrecks.
They will be more than happy to explain the exact legal ramifications if a violation is discovered, which could bring John's point 2.

What are the USN's strick protocol that you are reffering to. If you have any of that information, please share it so we can all be doing what is right and proper.

Thanks,

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:08 am

Who are "they"...
the Navy, Homeland Security/USCG, Seattle Harbor Patrol, someone else???

I can't imagine getting a single straight answer is easy.

Dmitchell · Post by **Dmitchell** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:10 am

So from an outsider looking in:

Wouldn't "don't ask, don't tell" be in everyone's best interest. If this guy goes and starts asking all these agencies for permission to dive these wrecks, he's going to force them to start enforcing rules that they might not otherwise enforce.

DM

mattwave · Post by **mattwave** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:24 am

Dmitchell wrote:So from an outsider looking in:

Wouldn't "don't ask, don't tell" be in everyone's best interest.
DM

yah I hear ya, and that's why I had no intentions to "tell", and I am still on the fence about it.

I will most likely just get back to my own endeavors and cross my fingers that more point of interest in my life don't become illegal to visit as many have in the past.

Curt McNamee · Post by **Curt McNamee** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:33 am

Dmitchell wrote:So from an outsider looking in:

Wouldn't "don't ask, don't tell" be in everyone's best interest. If this guy goes and starts asking all these agencies for permission to dive these wrecks, he's going to force them to start enforcing rules that they might not otherwise enforce.

DM

I also agree, but Matt had indicated that we should be doing certain things regarding permission and since he has been diving these wrecks then he should know what they are and that is all I am trying to find out.

Matt, if you do not have information, then that is fine but then it looks like all of us are not informed with what we should know.

mattwave · Post by **mattwave** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:48 am

I also agree, but Matt had indicated that we should be doing certain things regarding permission and since he has been diving these wrecks then he should know what they are and that is all I am trying to find out.

Matt, if you do not have information, then that is fine but then it looks like all of us are not informed with what we should know.[/quote]

There is a difference between permission and clearance, permission is "Can I dive these wrecks",
clearance is "Is there anything I need to know before I dive these wrecks, and just to let you know, we are willing to uphold such conditions"

FTR I never said "Permission"

CaptnJack · Post by **CaptnJack** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:52 am

Any limitations on the use of a Federally navigatable waterbody would have to be documented and approved by the USCG. They are also typically published on charts, in Pilot's Guides, (both may take awhile to be updated) and in the Local Notices to Mariners (LNM) which are published weekly. Each LNM supercedes the previous to avoid looking back over reams of them.

For the 13th District:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/lnm/d13/default.htm

Restrictions are not some obtuse legal BS only to be enacted at the whimsy of local officials. It might appear that way, but that's definately not the way the USCG enacts new restrictions on navigation and use of Federal Waters.

In a nutshell, not counting security zones and Sand Point, there are no published regulations restricting diving in Lake WA. On wrecks or just mud groveling.

Removal of artifacts from any Navy property is still theft. Legally from the Navy and morally from future divers.