I am coming to this with no knowledge of anything or anyone outside of what I am reading in the thread. I say this to bolster credentials as an impartial observer.
Here is the sentence from the article that is causing the present controversy: "An investigation conducted by the Coast Guard determined administrative action would be taken against the master of the vessel, Rebecca Bryson, for three acts of misconduct and one act of negligence. The judge upheld the four charges Oct. 21, 2013."
From reading this, it would appear as if they were able to identify three specific acts of misconduct and one act of negligence. It sounds as if they are indisputable.
Strange as it may seem, that does not contradict what others are saying in defense of Rebecca Bryson (about whom, I repeat, I know absolutely nothing). For example, let's take this sentence: “The captain of the Miss Lindsey’s knowledge of the local area and professional response assisted the diver in getting medical attention in a timely manner,” said Petty Officer 1st Class Tony Johnson, a search and rescue coordinator at Sector Hampton Roads." That could be 100% true, but it does not contradict the charges in the slightest.
Let's compare this with a totally unrelated case. More than a decade ago, a woman (Tina Watson) drowned while diving in Australia. From all reports, the crew of the dive operator (Mike Ball) did an exemplary job in trying to effect a rescue, performing CPR, summoning help, etc. After an investigation, the fact that they did such an exemplary job did not negate the fact that they had violated their own company policy requiring all divers to do a checkout dive, a dive that would have revealed that both she and her husband (her buddy) were completely incompetent divers and were unable to perform satisfactorily on that dive. The operator was punished appropriately by the courts.
I think it would be a good idea to find out what the charges actually were before declaring they were unjustified.
