Question:
> Back in ancient days (before the fire burnt the water filled > escape tower in ‘68) all submariners made qualification escapes > from a 100 ft tank of water that was the tallest structure in > the NewLondon area (which was the reason the fire trucks could > not stop the HP air/ hydraulics fire). Two types of escape — a > free escape with only a lifejacket, and the lifejacket plus > Stenke Hood (a transparent plastic bag over the head with an air > bubble – so you breathed (out obviously) into a "normal" > environment instead of venting directly into water)
I did a brief search for a pic of a Steinke Hood, found some decent detailed descriptions, but no pic. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Candidates would enter an escape trunk mockup at 50 ft depth, > flood down, equalize pressure, open hatch and exit. Free divers > would make a surface dive to your depth and escort you to the > surface as your (partially) inflated lifejacket sent you > upwards. You would make the trip with mouth open, and travel > like a rocket because of the buoyancy. When reaching the surface > you would rise to about the knee level and then sink back — you > were moving fast!!. Bends is not a problem because you did not > have much time at pressure so you could make a fast surfacing, > something that SCUBA divers should not try because they are > quickly saturated at depth. Tank depth was limited because of > decompression problems for escorting free divers placed time > limits on their workday that shortened with depth. > The Stenke Hood was used from 75 ft, and was just boring. Same > operations as before, but hood presence caused loss of fear > associated with the free ascent.
We were taught to breathe out on the entire trip to the surface if we needed to make an emergency swimming ascent from depth while on scuba (like out of air) and to keep our regulators in our mouth during that trip. Air expanding in your lungs from holding your breath on the trip up to the surface can cause death even if you might have been able to survive decompression sickness with treatment. (Absolutely no need to run out of air unless you are careless about checking the air gauge, or have major equipment failure and no back up plan.) But, I can see how it would be more comforting, with the hood, to know if you did happen to involuntarily try to take a breath, it wouldn’t be sea water. >Dr Stenke had the record for > free ascents at that time (750 ft) for the escape trials. Since > then deep diving with free ascents has become an extreme sport > and I think the record is around 1000 ft.
Unfortunately, several men and women have lost consciousness and their lives in trying to set these records. > The WW2 escapes from 400 feet resulted in about 50% fatality > rates from bends with additional deaths from exposure as the > crews remained alone on the surface before rescue. > A modern escape from 750 feet is "exciting" in prospect. Five > men in trunk, flood down then start pressurizing with 700 psi > air. For survival the time from beginning pressurization until > last man was out of the hatch had to be 15 seconds. Needless to > say the pressurization would burst eardrums.
Ouch, maybe they should have the doc stick a needle in them before they go! Bursting eardrums would be momentarily painful followed by release of pressure, but then risk of infection and hearing loss if damage progressed to the middle ear and caused permanent damage. Of course, in a real emergency, that particular risk becomes trivial. In the process of looking up a bit more on the Steinke Hood, I found this article on the new Submarine Escape Immersion Equipment, if anyone is interested. Not as good as a rescue vehicle, but quite an improvement over the Steinke Hood. http://www.csp.navy.mil/news/rele04075.html Here is a full picture of the British version of the suit http://www.navalofficer.com.au/subsunk.htm I guess it is all moot, however, if you have progressed to depths much beyond the continental shelf. Also, I wondered how long it would take before the last man could proceed to the escape hatch. > There are a number of commercial boats that can take up to 20 > tourists, each with their own viewport. They do go to depths in > excess of 1000 feet. Needless to say, they use their own lights > and see only the deep scavangers. But they are a long way from > the bottom.
For those of us interested in the sea, but unable to go exploring: very nice site that includes audio recordings from undersea, maps, pics of sealife, and more. I thought the hydrothermal vent animations were really nice. http://www.oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Escape survival is "possible" since the extreme free divers go > from the surface to 1000 feet and then free ascent back to the > surface. But submariners are realistic also; escape systems are > touted only as a way to calm families at home. The relatively > useless sub distress beacons and telephones (mandated by law) > are welded to the hull to keep from rattling. They are generally > viewed as more dangerous to the crew if they are workable. > There are a lot of wild tales from officers who made the > exporation dives to the bottom. Including the first dive on > Scorpion — where the vehicle droped into the space between the > two broken parts of the sub — and saw the sub surrounding them. > Their prime fear was getting entangled in the wreckage. > Outrageous odds of that occuring again — but maritime survivors > expect and prepare for the worst.
I read some articles about the Trieste that made the descent in the Marianas Trench in 1960. Went to 35,810 fsw. The psi exceeded 16,000 lbs. at those depths. Amazing stuff. Thanks for all the descriptions and the stories. It’s been an enjoyable read and I learned some new stuff 
Response:
Any thoughts about taking a cruise in the flu season, especially as vaccines are not available this season.
Response:
> Any thoughts about taking a cruise in the flu > season, especially as vaccines are not > available this season.
Last year we had roughly 80 million doses. Total flu victims rate was about the same as in each year for last decade. In 1990 we had about 30 million doses. Total flu exposure rate was about the same as today, This year we will have 60 million doses. There is some question as to the type of flu protection given. This years strain was based on the Fujian flu variant, but recent cases in Southern Hemisphere have shown a very high (40%) rate of the new Wellington strain. In any case the flu vaccine is only marginally effective. There is a 60% chance that the vaccine will prevent the disease. You have a 40% chance of getting the flu even with the vaccine. The only real benefit is that if you are over 60 years old, the flu vaccine will cut you death risk by 90%, but you still have the 40% chance of catching the bug even with the vaccine. Realisticly the vaccine (other than for elderly) has only a marginal value, the total cost of the vaccine is only a bit less than the total value of man-days of labor lost and resulting production disruption. And unlike the stomach viruses that can lay you low in hours after you reach the ship, the influenza you catch on the ship will not show up for about 14 days. Plenty of time to enjoy yourself before disaster strikes.
Response:
Wow Earl, You must be a scientist or a statistician! I would simply say go and have fun! Happy Cruisin’ Mark Home Port: Monmouth County,NJ.
Response:
> Wow Earl, > You must be a scientist or a statistician! > I would simply say go and have fun! > Happy Cruisin’ > Mark > Home Port: > Monmouth County,NJ.
Pinpointed! High Temperature Chemist Submarine Nuclear Engineer It is always better to let the individual do his own risk analysis. He may consider some risks as trivial whereas others would be in perpetual panic. Submarine trips to test depth anyone?
Response:
> Pinpointed! > High Temperature Chemist > Submarine Nuclear Engineer > It is always better to let the individual do his own risk > analysis. He may consider some risks as trivial whereas others > would be in perpetual panic. > Submarine trips to test depth anyone?
Sure, we can start with this one http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2489220926 Trivial or panic?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Pinpointed! > High Temperature Chemist > Submarine Nuclear Engineer > It is always better to let the individual do his own risk > analysis. He may consider some risks as trivial whereas > others would be in perpetual panic. > Submarine trips to test depth anyone? > Sure, we can start with this one > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item > =2489220926 > Trivial or panic?
As the individual states — he is not sure of the 35 foot TD (that he hopes to reach). The figures for weight, ballast weight still needed, and appearance do not seem right. The registration is for California, not the IMO required Coast Guard / flagging required for carrying any passengers (not that they would fit). Since it is equiped with SCUBA I am not sure about the design, SCUBA gear implies flooded compartment, but other statements indicate "water tight" plywood and batteries do not like water. Hydrogen explosion and chlorine contamination risks are high As long as you do not exceed the 35 foot TD there would be no problems (I had to make a 75 ft free escape as part of qualifications). Also try to keep in water no more than 50 foot — because it will sink like a rock. Great buy, but suggest that you purchase a multi-million dollar term insurance policy that includes this risk. Your widow will appreciate it. (To give you an idea of real depths — WW2 submariners went as deep as 1000 ft in 400ft TD boats. They also made escapes from 400 foot levels. Since then the US Navy official figures for boats are "in excess of 400 ft" and "in excess of 20 kts. Soviet boats had a reported depth of 3000 ft. Research subs went to 35,000 ft — the bottom of the ocean!!) You can get much better quality craft from a number of commercial sub makers. Costs a bit more, but the engineering is worth it. Tourist subs dive to 2000 feet.
Response:
It ain’t keeping me home.
Response:
It won’t stop me for one second: I may be a little more careful such as taking sanitary wipes for our hands, but to panic is to take to much to heart. Example: last year we cruised Thanksgiving week: the last couple of days I had a bit of a cough, by the time I got home I was really sick: Flu, no shot: within a week DH flu: had shot: got both the chest type of flu and stomach flu. Who was sicker, probably me: who was sick the longest he was. Does this mean I don’t beleive in the shot, heck no, it does mean I am not going to stay in the house all winter and wonder what is outside worrying about whether or not I might, by some chance, get sick. NMNita — newmexico Nita newmexico Nita’s Profile: http://travelforums.org/forums/member.php?userid=184 View this thread: http://travelforums.org/forums/showthread.php?t=16019 This post was submitted via http://www.TravelForums.org
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>It is always better to let the individual do his own risk >>analysis. He may consider some risks as trivial whereas >>others would be in perpetual panic. >>Submarine trips to test depth anyone? >Sure, we can start with this one >http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item >=2489220926 >Trivial or panic? > As the individual states — he is not sure of the 35 foot TD > (that he hopes to reach). The figures for weight, ballast weight > still needed, and appearance do not seem right.
Well, the 6,000 lb weight does include the weight of the driver 
Maybe it includes the weight of a water flooded compartment as well. And I’m quite sure the appearance will change if we take it deep enough! > The registration is for California, not the IMO required Coast > Guard / flagging required for carrying any passengers (not that > they would fit).
Thankfully. > Since it is equiped with SCUBA I am not sure about the design, > SCUBA gear implies flooded compartment, but other statements > indicate "water tight" plywood and batteries do not like water. > Hydrogen explosion and chlorine contamination risks are high
This also puzzled me. It has a steel hatch with an "air in/out blower", and sounds like 2 regular aluminum 80s and a second stage regulator included. Perhaps he rigged it as one of those "BOND" self-contained submersible vehicles that you can rent in Cozumel and the regulator is a back up. At least Cozumel includes a "safety diver" on scuba who can take over controls at the outside of the vehicle. > As long as you do not exceed the 35 foot TD there would be no > problems (I had to make a 75 ft free escape as part of > qualifications). Also try to keep in water no more than 50 foot > — because it will sink like a rock.
Earl, you took me entirely too seriously! There is no way I’d volunteer to take that to TD! I can easily triple that depth on an easy recreational dive and without almost 6,000 lbs of gear. BTW, I’d be interested in knowing a little more about how the free escape from a sub was effected and how much total time it took. > Great buy, but suggest that you purchase a multi-million dollar > term insurance policy that includes this risk. Your widow will > appreciate it.
If I had a multi-million dollar term insurance policy, I’m afraid my life might include additional risks from my spouse > (To give you an idea of real depths — WW2 submariners went as > deep as 1000 ft in 400ft TD boats. They also made escapes from > 400 foot levels. Since then the US Navy official figures for > boats are "in excess of 400 ft" and "in excess of 20 kts. > Soviet boats had a reported depth of 3000 ft. Research subs went > to 35,000 ft — the bottom of the ocean!!)
I walked through a WW2 era sub, I am not hugely claustrophobic, but I have to give credit to anyone who could live in such close quarters for months on end! > You can get much better quality craft from a number of > commercial sub makers. Costs a bit more, but the engineering is > worth it. Tourist subs dive to 2000 feet.
To bring things back to topic somewhat, I am only aware of Grand Cayman offering trips down to 400 – 800fsw to tourists in a 3 man sub. I’d love to do it one day. When you say the "Tourist subs dive to 2000 feet", I am assuming they -can-, but don’t regularly take tourists to that kind of depth. It would be so great to see the ocean floor aboard one of these, even though I could forget about a "free ascent" saving my ass at those kinds of depths!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> As long as you do not exceed the 35 foot TD there would be > no problems (I had to make a 75 ft free escape as part of > qualifications). Also try to keep in water no more than 50 > foot – because it will sink like a rock. > Earl, you took me entirely too seriously! There is no way > I’d volunteer to take that to TD! I can easily triple that > depth on an easy recreational dive and without almost 6,000 > lbs of gear. BTW, I’d be interested in knowing a little more > about how the free escape from a sub was effected and how > much total time it took.
Back in ancient days (before the fire burnt the water filled escape tower in ‘68) all submariners made qualification escapes from a 100 ft tank of water that was the tallest structure in the NewLondon area (which was the reason the fire trucks could not stop the HP air/ hydraulics fire). Two types of escape — a free escape with only a lifejacket, and the lifejacket plus Stenke Hood (a transparent plastic bag over the head with an air bubble – so you breathed (out obviously) into a "normal" environment instead of venting directly into water) Candidates would enter an escape trunk mockup at 50 ft depth, flood down, equalize pressure, open hatch and exit. Free divers would make a surface dive to your depth and escort you to the surface as your (partially) inflated lifejacket sent you upwards. You would make the trip with mouth open, and travel like a rocket because of the buoyancy. When reaching the surface you would rise to about the knee level and then sink back — you were moving fast!!. Bends is not a problem because you did not have much time at pressure so you could make a fast surfacing, something that SCUBA divers should not try because they are quickly saturated at depth. Tank depth was limited because of decompression problems for escorting free divers placed time limits on their workday that shortened with depth. The Stenke Hood was used from 75 ft, and was just boring. Same operations as before, but hood presence caused loss of fear associated with the free ascent. Dr Stenke had the record for free ascents at that time (750 ft) for the escape trials. Since then deep diving with free ascents has become an extreme sport and I think the record is around 1000 ft. The WW2 escapes from 400 feet resulted in about 50% fatality rates from bends with additional deaths from exposure as the crews remained alone on the surface before rescue. A modern escape from 750 feet is "exciting" in prospect. Five men in trunk, flood down then start pressurizing with 700 psi air. For survival the time from beginning pressurization until last man was out of the hatch had to be 15 seconds. Needless to say the pressurization would burst eardrums. > I walked through a WW2 era sub, I am not hugely > claustrophobic, but I have to give credit to anyone who > could live in such close quarters for months on end!
I went with my sister to tour one of the memorials (each state has one to commemorate the 52 boats lost in ww2 — 25% of the service. That does not compare to the Uboat losses ~ 90%. As an indication of the sub community – in the ’60s the President of the Texas chapter of Submarine Veterams of WW2 was a UBoat sailor. The sea was dangerous enough. ). We entered through the ballast tank (boat on land) and saw the engine room — or rather half the engine room — the boat had been stripped to give land lubbers enough room to walk. When in the conning tower another couple remarked how crowded it was (4 people!), I had to tell them that at battle stations 12 men worked in the compartment to make the approach to the target. For a patrol you load up with weapons and food for 90 days. And then proceed to eat your way to the bulkhead. Fresh food? yeh, what is that after 2 weeks. Think of the man getting the last egg served, before the shift to powdered eggs. Freeze drying was invented to supply food for ww2 era subs. > You can get much better quality craft from a number of > commercial sub makers. Costs a bit more, but the > engineering is worth it. Tourist subs dive to 2000 feet. > To bring things back to topic somewhat, I am only aware of > Grand Cayman offering trips down to 400 – 800fsw to tourists > in a 3 man sub. I’d love to do it one day. When you say > the "Tourist subs dive to 2000 feet", I am assuming they > -can-, but don’t regularly take tourists to that kind of > depth. It would be so great to see the ocean floor aboard > one of these, even though I could forget about a "free > ascent" saving my ass at those kinds of depths!
There are a number of commercial boats that can take up to 20 tourists, each with their own viewport. They do go to depths in excess of 1000 feet. Needless to say, they use their own lights and see only the deep scavangers. But they are a long way from the bottom. Escape survival is "possible" since the extreme free divers go from the surface to 1000 feet and then free ascent back to the surface. But submariners are realistic also; escape systems are touted only as a way to calm families at home. The relatively useless sub distress beacons and telephones (mandated by law) are welded to the hull to keep from rattling. They are generally viewed as more dangerous to the crew if they are workable. There are a lot of wild tales from officers who made the exporation dives to the bottom. Including the first dive on Scorpion — where the vehicle droped into the space between the two broken parts of the sub — and saw the sub surrounding them. Their prime fear was getting entangled in the wreckage. Outrageous odds of that occuring again — but maritime survivors expect and prepare for the worst.
Response:
Any thoughts about taking a cruise in the flu season, especially as vaccines are not available this season.
Response:
> Any thoughts about taking a cruise in the flu > season, especially as vaccines are not > available this season.
Last year we had roughly 80 million doses. Total flu victims rate was about the same as in each year for last decade. In 1990 we had about 30 million doses. Total flu exposure rate was about the same as today, This year we will have 60 million doses. There is some question as to the type of flu protection given. This years strain was based on the Fujian flu variant, but recent cases in Southern Hemisphere have shown a very high (40%) rate of the new Wellington strain. In any case the flu vaccine is only marginally effective. There is a 60% chance that the vaccine will prevent the disease. You have a 40% chance of getting the flu even with the vaccine. The only real benefit is that if you are over 60 years old, the flu vaccine will cut you death risk by 90%, but you still have the 40% chance of catching the bug even with the vaccine. Realisticly the vaccine (other than for elderly) has only a marginal value, the total cost of the vaccine is only a bit less than the total value of man-days of labor lost and resulting production disruption. And unlike the stomach viruses that can lay you low in hours after you reach the ship, the influenza you catch on the ship will not show up for about 14 days. Plenty of time to enjoy yourself before disaster strikes.
Response:
Wow Earl, You must be a scientist or a statistician! I would simply say go and have fun! Happy Cruisin’ Mark Home Port: Monmouth County,NJ.
Response:
> Wow Earl, > You must be a scientist or a statistician! > I would simply say go and have fun! > Happy Cruisin’ > Mark > Home Port: > Monmouth County,NJ.
Pinpointed! High Temperature Chemist Submarine Nuclear Engineer It is always better to let the individual do his own risk analysis. He may consider some risks as trivial whereas others would be in perpetual panic. Submarine trips to test depth anyone?
Response:
> Pinpointed! > High Temperature Chemist > Submarine Nuclear Engineer > It is always better to let the individual do his own risk > analysis. He may consider some risks as trivial whereas others > would be in perpetual panic. > Submarine trips to test depth anyone?
Sure, we can start with this one http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2489220926 Trivial or panic?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Pinpointed! > High Temperature Chemist > Submarine Nuclear Engineer > It is always better to let the individual do his own risk > analysis. He may consider some risks as trivial whereas > others would be in perpetual panic. > Submarine trips to test depth anyone? > Sure, we can start with this one > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item > =2489220926 > Trivial or panic?
As the individual states — he is not sure of the 35 foot TD (that he hopes to reach). The figures for weight, ballast weight still needed, and appearance do not seem right. The registration is for California, not the IMO required Coast Guard / flagging required for carrying any passengers (not that they would fit). Since it is equiped with SCUBA I am not sure about the design, SCUBA gear implies flooded compartment, but other statements indicate "water tight" plywood and batteries do not like water. Hydrogen explosion and chlorine contamination risks are high As long as you do not exceed the 35 foot TD there would be no problems (I had to make a 75 ft free escape as part of qualifications). Also try to keep in water no more than 50 foot — because it will sink like a rock. Great buy, but suggest that you purchase a multi-million dollar term insurance policy that includes this risk. Your widow will appreciate it. (To give you an idea of real depths — WW2 submariners went as deep as 1000 ft in 400ft TD boats. They also made escapes from 400 foot levels. Since then the US Navy official figures for boats are "in excess of 400 ft" and "in excess of 20 kts. Soviet boats had a reported depth of 3000 ft. Research subs went to 35,000 ft — the bottom of the ocean!!) You can get much better quality craft from a number of commercial sub makers. Costs a bit more, but the engineering is worth it. Tourist subs dive to 2000 feet.
Response:
It ain’t keeping me home.
Response:
It won’t stop me for one second: I may be a little more careful such as taking sanitary wipes for our hands, but to panic is to take to much to heart. Example: last year we cruised Thanksgiving week: the last couple of days I had a bit of a cough, by the time I got home I was really sick: Flu, no shot: within a week DH flu: had shot: got both the chest type of flu and stomach flu. Who was sicker, probably me: who was sick the longest he was. Does this mean I don’t beleive in the shot, heck no, it does mean I am not going to stay in the house all winter and wonder what is outside worrying about whether or not I might, by some chance, get sick. NMNita — newmexico Nita newmexico Nita’s Profile: http://travelforums.org/forums/member.php?userid=184 View this thread: http://travelforums.org/forums/showthread.php?t=16019 This post was submitted via http://www.TravelForums.org
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>It is always better to let the individual do his own risk >>analysis. He may consider some risks as trivial whereas >>others would be in perpetual panic. >>Submarine trips to test depth anyone? >Sure, we can start with this one >http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item >=2489220926 >Trivial or panic? > As the individual states — he is not sure of the 35 foot TD > (that he hopes to reach). The figures for weight, ballast weight > still needed, and appearance do not seem right.
Well, the 6,000 lb weight does include the weight of the driver Maybe it includes the weight of a water flooded compartment as well. And I’m quite sure the appearance will change if we take it deep enough! > The registration is for California, not the IMO required Coast > Guard / flagging required for carrying any passengers (not that > they would fit).
Thankfully. > Since it is equiped with SCUBA I am not sure about the design, > SCUBA gear implies flooded compartment, but other statements > indicate "water tight" plywood and batteries do not like water. > Hydrogen explosion and chlorine contamination risks are high
This also puzzled me. It has a steel hatch with an "air in/out blower", and sounds like 2 regular aluminum 80s and a second stage regulator included. Perhaps he rigged it as one of those "BOND" self-contained submersible vehicles that you can rent in Cozumel and the regulator is a back up. At least Cozumel includes a "safety diver" on scuba who can take over controls at the outside of the vehicle. > As long as you do not exceed the 35 foot TD there would be no > problems (I had to make a 75 ft free escape as part of > qualifications). Also try to keep in water no more than 50 foot > — because it will sink like a rock.
Earl, you took me entirely too seriously! There is no way I’d volunteer to take that to TD! I can easily triple that depth on an easy recreational dive and without almost 6,000 lbs of gear. BTW, I’d be interested in knowing a little more about how the free escape from a sub was effected and how much total time it took. > Great buy, but suggest that you purchase a multi-million dollar > term insurance policy that includes this risk. Your widow will > appreciate it.
If I had a multi-million dollar term insurance policy, I’m afraid my life might include additional risks from my spouse > (To give you an idea of real depths — WW2 submariners went as > deep as 1000 ft in 400ft TD boats. They also made escapes from > 400 foot levels. Since then the US Navy official figures for > boats are "in excess of 400 ft" and "in excess of 20 kts. > Soviet boats had a reported depth of 3000 ft. Research subs went > to 35,000 ft — the bottom of the ocean!!)
I walked through a WW2 era sub, I am not hugely claustrophobic, but I have to give credit to anyone who could live in such close quarters for months on end! > You can get much better quality craft from a number of > commercial sub makers. Costs a bit more, but the engineering is > worth it. Tourist subs dive to 2000 feet.
To bring things back to topic somewhat, I am only aware of Grand Cayman offering trips down to 400 – 800fsw to tourists in a 3 man sub. I’d love to do it one day. When you say the "Tourist subs dive to 2000 feet", I am assuming they -can-, but don’t regularly take tourists to that kind of depth. It would be so great to see the ocean floor aboard one of these, even though I could forget about a "free ascent" saving my ass at those kinds of depths!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> As long as you do not exceed the 35 foot TD there would be > no problems (I had to make a 75 ft free escape as part of > qualifications). Also try to keep in water no more than 50 > foot – because it will sink like a rock. > Earl, you took me entirely too seriously! There is no way > I’d volunteer to take that to TD! I can easily triple that > depth on an easy recreational dive and without almost 6,000 > lbs of gear. BTW, I’d be interested in knowing a little more > about how the free escape from a sub was effected and how > much total time it took.
Back in ancient days (before the fire burnt the water filled escape tower in ‘68) all submariners made qualification escapes from a 100 ft tank of water that was the tallest structure in the NewLondon area (which was the reason the fire trucks could not stop the HP air/ hydraulics fire). Two types of escape — a free escape with only a lifejacket, and the lifejacket plus Stenke Hood (a transparent plastic bag over the head with an air bubble – so you breathed (out obviously) into a "normal" environment instead of venting directly into water) Candidates would enter an escape trunk mockup at 50 ft depth, flood down, equalize pressure, open hatch and exit. Free divers would make a surface dive to your depth and escort you to the surface as your (partially) inflated lifejacket sent you upwards. You would make the trip with mouth open, and travel like a rocket because of the buoyancy. When reaching the surface you would rise to about the knee level and then sink back — you were moving fast!!. Bends is not a problem because you did not have much time at pressure so you could make a fast surfacing, something that SCUBA divers should not try because they are quickly saturated at depth. Tank depth was limited because of decompression problems for escorting free divers placed time limits on their workday that shortened with depth. The Stenke Hood was used from 75 ft, and was just boring. Same operations as before, but hood presence caused loss of fear associated with the free ascent. Dr Stenke had the record for free ascents at that time (750 ft) for the escape trials. Since then deep diving with free ascents has become an extreme sport and I think the record is around 1000 ft. The WW2 escapes from 400 feet resulted in about 50% fatality rates from bends with additional deaths from exposure as the crews remained alone on the surface before rescue. A modern escape from 750 feet is "exciting" in prospect. Five men in trunk, flood down then start pressurizing with 700 psi air. For survival the time from beginning pressurization until last man was out of the hatch had to be 15 seconds. Needless to say the pressurization would burst eardrums. > I walked through a WW2 era sub, I am not hugely > claustrophobic, but I have to give credit to anyone who > could live in such close quarters for months on end!
I went with my sister to tour one of the memorials (each state has one to commemorate the 52 boats lost in ww2 — 25% of the service. That does not compare to the Uboat losses ~ 90%. As an indication of the sub community – in the ’60s the President of the Texas chapter of Submarine Veterams of WW2 was a UBoat sailor. The sea was dangerous enough. ). We entered through the ballast tank (boat on land) and saw the engine room — or rather half the engine room — the boat had been stripped to give land lubbers enough room to walk. When in the conning tower another couple remarked how crowded it was (4 people!), I had to tell them that at battle stations 12 men worked in the compartment to make the approach to the target. For a patrol you load up with weapons and food for 90 days. And then proceed to eat your way to the bulkhead. Fresh food? yeh, what is that after 2 weeks. Think of the man getting the last egg served, before the shift to powdered eggs. Freeze drying was invented to supply food for ww2 era subs. > You can get much better quality craft from a number of > commercial sub makers. Costs a bit more, but the > engineering is worth it. Tourist subs dive to 2000 feet. > To bring things back to topic somewhat, I am only aware of > Grand Cayman offering trips down to 400 – 800fsw to tourists > in a 3 man sub. I’d love to do it one day. When you say > the "Tourist subs dive to 2000 feet", I am assuming they > -can-, but don’t regularly take tourists to that kind of > depth. It would be so great to see the ocean floor aboard > one of these, even though I could forget about a "free > ascent" saving my ass at those kinds of depths!
There are a number of commercial boats that can take up to 20 tourists, each with their own viewport. They do go to depths in excess of 1000 feet. Needless to say, they use their own lights and see only the deep scavangers. But they are a long way from the bottom. Escape survival is "possible" since the extreme free divers go from the surface to 1000 feet and then free ascent back to the surface. But submariners are realistic also; escape systems are touted only as a way to calm families at home. The relatively useless sub distress beacons and telephones (mandated by law) are welded to the hull to keep from rattling. They are generally viewed as more dangerous to the crew if they are workable. There are a lot of wild tales from officers who made the exporation dives to the bottom. Including the first dive on Scorpion — where the vehicle droped into the space between the two broken parts of the sub — and saw the sub surrounding them. Their prime fear was getting entangled in the wreckage. Outrageous odds of that occuring again — but maritime survivors expect and prepare for the worst.
Response:
> Back in ancient days (before the fire burnt the water filled > escape tower in ‘68) all submariners made qualification escapes > from a 100 ft tank of water that was the tallest structure in > the NewLondon area (which was the reason the fire trucks could > not stop the HP air/ hydraulics fire). Two types of escape — a > free escape with only a lifejacket, and the lifejacket plus > Stenke Hood (a transparent plastic bag over the head with an air > bubble – so you breathed (out obviously) into a "normal" > environment instead of venting directly into water)
I did a brief search for a pic of a Steinke Hood, found some decent detailed descriptions, but no pic. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Candidates would enter an escape trunk mockup at 50 ft depth, > flood down, equalize pressure, open hatch and exit. Free divers > would make a surface dive to your depth and escort you to the > surface as your (partially) inflated lifejacket sent you > upwards. You would make the trip with mouth open, and travel > like a rocket because of the buoyancy. When reaching the surface > you would rise to about the knee level and then sink back — you > were moving fast!!. Bends is not a problem because you did not > have much time at pressure so you could make a fast surfacing, > something that SCUBA divers should not try because they are > quickly saturated at depth. Tank depth was limited because of > decompression problems for escorting free divers placed time > limits on their workday that shortened with depth. > The Stenke Hood was used from 75 ft, and was just boring. Same > operations as before, but hood presence caused loss of fear > associated with the free ascent.
We were taught to breathe out on the entire trip to the surface if we needed to make an emergency swimming ascent from depth while on scuba (like out of air) and to keep our regulators in our mouth during that trip. Air expanding in your lungs from holding your breath on the trip up to the surface can cause death even if you might have been able to survive decompression sickness with treatment. (Absolutely no need to run out of air unless you are careless about checking the air gauge, or have major equipment failure and no back up plan.) But, I can see how it would be more comforting, with the hood, to know if you did happen to involuntarily try to take a breath, it wouldn’t be sea water. >Dr Stenke had the record for > free ascents at that time (750 ft) for the escape trials. Since > then deep diving with free ascents has become an extreme sport > and I think the record is around 1000 ft.
Unfortunately, several men and women have lost consciousness and their lives in trying to set these records. > The WW2 escapes from 400 feet resulted in about 50% fatality > rates from bends with additional deaths from exposure as the > crews remained alone on the surface before rescue. > A modern escape from 750 feet is "exciting" in prospect. Five > men in trunk, flood down then start pressurizing with 700 psi > air. For survival the time from beginning pressurization until > last man was out of the hatch had to be 15 seconds. Needless to > say the pressurization would burst eardrums.
Ouch, maybe they should have the doc stick a needle in them before they go! Bursting eardrums would be momentarily painful followed by release of pressure, but then risk of infection and hearing loss if damage progressed to the middle ear and caused permanent damage. Of course, in a real emergency, that particular risk becomes trivial. In the process of looking up a bit more on the Steinke Hood, I found this article on the new Submarine Escape Immersion Equipment, if anyone is interested. Not as good as a rescue vehicle, but quite an improvement over the Steinke Hood. http://www.csp.navy.mil/news/rele04075.html Here is a full picture of the British version of the suit http://www.navalofficer.com.au/subsunk.htm I guess it is all moot, however, if you have progressed to depths much beyond the continental shelf. Also, I wondered how long it would take before the last man could proceed to the escape hatch. > There are a number of commercial boats that can take up to 20 > tourists, each with their own viewport. They do go to depths in > excess of 1000 feet. Needless to say, they use their own lights > and see only the deep scavangers. But they are a long way from > the bottom.
For those of us interested in the sea, but unable to go exploring: very nice site that includes audio recordings from undersea, maps, pics of sealife, and more. I thought the hydrothermal vent animations were really nice. http://www.oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Escape survival is "possible" since the extreme free divers go > from the surface to 1000 feet and then free ascent back to the > surface. But submariners are realistic also; escape systems are > touted only as a way to calm families at home. The relatively > useless sub distress beacons and telephones (mandated by law) > are welded to the hull to keep from rattling. They are generally > viewed as more dangerous to the crew if they are workable. > There are a lot of wild tales from officers who made the > exporation dives to the bottom. Including the first dive on > Scorpion — where the vehicle droped into the space between the > two broken parts of the sub — and saw the sub surrounding them. > Their prime fear was getting entangled in the wreckage. > Outrageous odds of that occuring again — but maritime survivors > expect and prepare for the worst.
I read some articles about the Trieste that made the descent in the Marianas Trench in 1960. Went to 35,810 fsw. The psi exceeded 16,000 lbs. at those depths. Amazing stuff. Thanks for all the descriptions and the stories. It’s been an enjoyable read and I learned some new stuff
Response: