NTSB CONCEPTION HEARING - THIS TUESDAY @ 10AM

[Wookie]

With all this information spread out over 2 threads, I am more than a little confused about a couple of things, and something I think I remember reading somewhere comes to mind, but I can't find it.

I thought I read crews on the truth Aquatics boats were under the impression that if they had a crew member sleeping in the same bunk area as the passengers, that met the requirement of a roving watch. I don't see how anyone could think that, but I am pretty sure I read it somewhere.

I've read every post in every thread, and I don't remember anyone saying this. But I've slept since then and us old guys forget when we sleep.

 

[Gareth J]

I thought I read crews on the truth Aquatics boats were under the impression that if they had a crew member sleeping in the same bunk area as the passengers, that met the requirement of a roving watch. I don't see how anyone could think that, but I am pretty sure I read it somewhere.

I think that might have been in the evidence to the NTSB, part of the hearing. I remember it.

 

[boulderjohn]

So here's the deal. There are a ton of engineered solutions, manpower solutions, and other solutions to the problems on the Conception, but at the end of the day, NO ONE MADE THEM DO ANY OF THEM.
....
so while we all point out what could have been installed, remember that what was installed met the minimum requirements that the regulatory agency had for keeping passengers safe.

As I understand this post, it says that the Conception met the minimum requirements, and nobody made them do more. I would like to talk about one of the safety features and phrase that statement a little differently and then discuss how that different phrasing affects my understanding of the overall issue.

I want to talk about the second escape route through the hatch, the one in the ceiling above 3 bunks. Here is a quote I picked up from Wikipedia about it:

NTSB Member Michael E. Graham stated "I don't see how an average human with a life jacket on could get up through that hatch ... without being a contortionist."​

Here is how I would phrase this situation:

Truth Aquatics installed a hatch that met the requirement for a secondary exit but then decided to block that exit with extra bunks so that they could generate more income on days when the boat was fully booked.
​

That wording changes the actions of the ownership from a passive failure to do more than was minimally necessary for safety to an intentional act to get away with doing less than was minimally necessary in order to enhance profitability. I get the sense that this was the guiding principle behind all related decisions.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

I thought I read crews on the truth Aquatics boats were under the impression that if they had a crew member sleeping in the same bunk area as the passengers, that met the requirement of a roving watch. I don't see how anyone could think that, but I am pretty sure I read it somewhere.

One of the previous/other captains who worked for Truth said that in his interview with NTSB. I think it was mentioned in some of the narrative during the hearing. It's certainly in the document file.

I think the thought behind it (not saying I agree with this, just explaining it) is that the duty of a roving watch is to assist passengers, especially in an emergency, so having a crew member always in the same area (bunkroom) as passengers is a good way to do that.

 

[drrich2]

USCG has not issued a fine or citation since 1991 for lack of roving patrol (on small passenger vessels?).

and also, as they alluded to, sending a message to the small passenger vessel industry. As Homendy said, "While that may be how the industry operates, that's not right."

I've only taken 7 liveaboards. I can't say with certainty whether any of these had a roving night watch, with one exception.

It's my understanding a roving watch is required by some regulation, so my question pertains to what's actually common practice ini the industry, because the lack of a roving watch is apt to be a major point of vilification against Truth Aquatics and the captain. I'm trying to get a sense of the industry culture that form a setting in which this took place.

Looking at the live-aboard industry in U.S. waters, how common is it to find a consistent roving watch through the night? As a rough rule of thumb for estimates, let's say it may be in the neighborhood of 25% of the time, 50% or 75%, give or take a few % either way. Which would it be?

I get that 'almost everybody does it' doesn't overrule a regulation. On the other hand, if everyone else but T.A. strictly obeyed, that would look worse, so I think it's a relevant question.

Next question...what about non-U.S. live-aboards, rather Caribbean, Pacific, Indonesia, Red Sea, Maldives, etc...? Any idea if a roving watch is reliably commonplace there?

I ask because I wonder if people aghast Truth Aquatics didn't have a roving watch often spend time on live-aboards elsewhere that lack it, and don't give it a thought.

P.S.: I'm not asking to 'name and shame' any live-aboard operators. Just trying to get a better feel for the industry broadly.

 

[Marie13]

I don’t do liveaboards and doubt I ever will.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think the thought behind it (not saying I agree with this, just explaining it) is that the duty of a roving watch is to assist passengers, especially in an emergency, so having a crew member always in the same area (bunkroom) as passengers is a good way to do that.

So let's look at this from the point of view of my last post.

The primary point of a roving watch is obviously to be on the watch for problems, notably fire. Any idiot can see that having a crew member asleep in the bunkroom does absolutely nothing in that regard. If the alleged rationale is to have someone there to assist passengers in case a fire breaks out, it is hard to see how one more sleeping person needing to escape a conflagration will help, and any idiot should be able to see that. In summary, any idiot can see that this does not in any way comply with the purpose of this rule, and any idiot can see that it is a specious argument designed to avoid having to meet that rule.

So how does that compare with the conscious decision to block the secondary exit in order to provide room for more paying customers in the event of a full boat? My best guess is that the owner employs the smallest crew possible in order to maximize profits. Every member of this crew has a full job during the day, and they need their sleep. If he wants a roving watch at night, he might need another crew member so that work could be rotated in such a way that someone could be reasonably expected to be awake.

The owner decided that by faking a way to get around the roving watch rule, he could save some money.

 

[tursiops]

the conscious decision to block the secondary exit in order to provide room for more paying customers

You've uncomfortably moved from a hypothesis to a fact. And "blocked" is rather a strong word, given that people have shown they can successfully use that exit.

 

[boulderjohn]

It's my understanding a roving watch is required by some regulation, so my question pertains to what's actually common practice ini the industry, because the lack of a roving watch is apt to be a major point of vilification against Truth Aquatics and the captain. I'm trying to get a sense of the industry culture that form a setting in which this took place.

After the fire on the Conception, a group of divers went for a liveaboard trip on the Red Sea Aggressor. The passengers were understandably concerned, and they raised this very issue with the staff. The staff assured them that the incident with the Conception was very much on their mind, and the passengers on their boat could be sure all safety rules would be carefully followed.

When the fire then broke out on the Red Sea Aggressor, the passengers fortunately smelled the smoke and awoke. There was no roving watch, and every member of the crew was asleep. They tried to escape through the designated escape hatch, but they had trouble because one of the crew members was sleeping on a mattress lying on top of the escape hatch. Fortunately, the efforts to open the hatch woke the crew member, and he woke the others. Fortunately (and definitely not by design), most, but not all, of the passengers were able to get off the boat by jumping into the water before it fully burned and sank.

 

[John Bantin]

With all this information spread out over 2 threads, I am more than a little confused about a couple of things, and something I think I remember reading somewhere comes to mind, but I can't find it.

I thought I read crews on the truth Aquatics boats were under the impression that if they had a crew member sleeping in the same bunk area as the passengers, that met the requirement of a roving watch. I don't see how anyone could think that, but I am pretty sure I read it somewhere.

You heard it or read it from the NTSB enquiry.