Captain's obligation to divers

[captndale]

For ships yes, but for dive boats its going to depend on where you are. If you are anchored or moored 12miles offshore in say NC, jumping overboard thinking you are going to rescue someone is not a good idea. And I don't think the CG would see you as anything but underway and leaving your vessel not undercommand either. The same situation in a harbor would probably be viewed as not underway and at anchor.

The CG is great at splitting hairs about this stuff but the reality is that incidents (and a lost/drowned diver would be one) instantly end up in the court system where it all comes down to what a prudent mariner would do. If you rescued the diver in distress it would be good. If your customers had to start the boat and pick you up or radio a helicopter to come find you offshore, you can expect to lose your license.

It can be dangerous to start redefining words that already have very precise definitions in the law and regulations. For example, "not under command" does not mean "without a captain on board" as you seem to think. "Not under command" means "disabled such that the vessel is maneuvering with difficulty."

 

[rjack321]

It can be dangerous to start redefining words that already have very precise definitions in the law and regulations. For example, "not under command" does not mean "without a captain on board" as you seem to think. "Not under command" means "disabled such that the vessel is maneuvering with difficulty."

I suspect being operated by a non-licensed passenger in an emergency since the proper skipper jumped overboard to try and rescue a passenger/diver might qualify as "maneuvering with difficulty" - not exactly a broken rudder but similar enough.

 

[captndale]

I happen to agree that a captain who jumps into the water to effect a rescue himself is doing an incredibly stupid thing. That said, I also think that putting your own , incorrect definition on words that already have very specific legal definitions will only serve to get you into legal problems if you try to rely on them to try to defend yourself. If you want to know where you stand with the law and the regulators, you need to know the true meaning of the regulations that apply. Trying to change or color the meaning by redefining the words will only serve to get you into trouble.

 

[Terryb]

Having been a captain in Canada, Tobermory in fact.

I can tell you that all boats that I have ever dove from or operated in Ontario do not usually send an additional crew member let alone a DM. I had one instance in which I had 8 divers conducting a wall dive, bottom around 250'. One diver came up within a few minutes of starting the dive, would not respond to the boat and was attempting to inflate a rental BC with no luck. The diver sank a few times and was in obvious distress. I entered the water and ended up inflating the BC and dragging the diver back to the boat. I cancelled both the diver and buddys' dives for the rest of the day.
On post mortem though, I wondered what would have happened if I could not make it back to the boat, no one to drive, no one to radio for help. A tough situation.
Would I go in again? Probably it's hard to ignore someone in obvious need of help on the surface. I could only recommend to Canadian dive charters to add additional personnel to a charter for assistance.

 

[MConnelly2]

"A vessel which, through some exceptional circumstance, is unable to maneuver as required by these rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel"

 

[rjack321]

"A vessel which, through some exceptional circumstance, is unable to maneuver as required by these rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel"

Exactly and having a skipper who either foolishly or wisely jumped overboard to aid a passenger/diver would probably qualify as an exceptional circumstance IMHO. It would be up to a court to decide.

 

[mitsuguy]

Exactly and having a skipper who either foolishly or wisely jumped overboard to aid a passenger/diver would probably qualify as an exceptional circumstance IMHO. It would be up to a court to decide.

I'm sorry, but no.

Not under command = a loss of control, whether by loss of propulsion or steering, or both, or that either is hampered in a way that the boat is not under control...

just because the captain is not on the boat doesn't mean it is experiencing a loss of control...

not under command doesn't apply to any vessel if it is tied to a dock, attached to a mooring, at anchor, or aground because under these circumstances, steering and propulsion does not matter...

general rule is the captain doesn't leave the boat for any reason, whether they think they can accomplish a rescue and get back to the boat or not. now, has that rule been broken - I am sure it has... What if the person you are trying to save wears you out til you are exhausted and there is a current - losing hold of the line you took with you to help pull the victim back with, getting swept away from the boat, at the same time the VHF dies... A few miles out to sea, no one knows how to start or drive the boat and the VHF is broken... Now you've got yourself and a victim adrift and passengers stranded on your boat with no easy way to move the boat or contact help... likely? probably not... but unlikely things happen all the time Guess who wins that lawsuit, guess who is never a boat captain again? (assuming everyone eventually makes it back to shore)