Conception families suing the Coast Guard

[BackAfter30]

If I were inspecting the vessel (I am not now,
Nor ever have been a coast guard inspector) I would consider 3 exits from the crews quarters to be adequate. If either the boat is on fire or sinking, there are 3 ways to fresh air and escaping the vessel.

And as far as escaping to safety themselves, it is trivial to go over the rail and easily reach the water. (There are emergency PFDs available in the crew quarters, right?) Obviously, the hazard - as witnessed by the broken leg - was that the crew's duty was to remain on the boat to fight fire and save passengers. In that context, perhaps the regs might be inadequate, and that a ladder forward to mirror the ladder aft might be indicated.

 

[Wookie]

And as far as escaping to safety themselves, it is trivial to go over the rail and easily reach the water. (There are emergency PFDs available in the crew quarters, right?) Obviously, the hazard - as witnessed by the broken leg - was that the crew's duty was to remain on the boat to fight fire and save passengers. In that context, perhaps the regs might be inadequate, and that a ladder forward to mirror the ladder aft might be indicated.

I won’t argue your point, but it’s tough to win a lawsuit on would have and should have and might. If as stated, the families are suing the coast guard, they will need something stronger that “The CG should have required another ladder”.

 

[BackAfter30]

I won’t argue your point, but it’s tough to win a lawsuit on would have and should have and might. If as stated, the families are suing the coast guard, they will need something stronger that “The CG should have required another ladder”.

No, I agree completely. I was really commenting on @KevinNM comments. The thing about regulations is that most of them are only found to be inadequate when something goes bad wrong.

I'm going to guess that a big part of the motivation for the suit is to force an evaluation of inspection procedures, and grandfathering. We here in CO just ended a suit against Vail Resorts for the death in an avalanche of a 14yo boy. The parents said that the suit was not to get money from Vail (they said they'd donate any money they won), but to get Vail to revise their procedures and accept some responsibility. It's unfortunate that companies and gubmints can't express anything more than platitudes in the wake of tragedies due to our legal environment.

 

[KevinNM]

The crew deck is fairly trivial. But it is a regulation, the fact that the boat did not meet it is clear and it isn’t a hard to discover issue. It was in the face of every coast guardsman who was ever on the boat.

So the fact that not a single one ever noticed is a sign that they treated inspections very casually and as a paper work box checking exercise.

 

[Scraps]

One note regarding the editorializing in the linked article.

The article states, "The Coast Guard, which has routinely ignored past NTSB safety recommendations, said earlier this year it would make some of the suggested changes."

The relative clause in that sentence is blatantly false.

The Coast Guard often disagrees with NTSB safety recommendations, usually because they doubt the practicality, effectiveness, cost -benefit ratio, or applicability to regulated entities. However, there is nothing "routine" about the decision not to implement an NTSB recommendation, and the recommendations are never "ignored."

The Coast Guard goes through every single recommendation of every NTSB report pertaining to matters under its jurisdiction and goes on record as to which ones it is implementing as recommended, which ones it is implementing in part, which ones it is not implementing and why.

The NTSB operates from a privileged position. It chooses which mishaps it investigates, and it has no responsibility for what happens after their reports are published. Their reports often include more than a little bit of posturing and advocacy. They have the luxury of being able to recommend completely impractical solutions, then stand back and wag their fingers when the operating agencies who have to do the hard work or writing and building consensus for useful regulations don't do everything they suggest.

The NTSB has an important role as an independent fact finder. I'm glad they exist. But it is simplistic to treat their recommendations as the last word on anything.

 

[KevinNM]

During the hearing the NTSB commissioners expressed significant frustration with the CG for not implementing previous recommendations, including some that the CG had agreed to do but had never gotten around to actually doing. However, the CG (like the other regulators such as the FAA and NHSA) has obligations beyond maximizing safety.

There will be far lower risk of death at sea if nobody is allowed to leave the dock. Similarly, if you mandated governors on all vehicles that limited speed to 15 miles per hour and only in good weather and in daytime you'd probably reduce the accident death rate. But that isn't the business the regulators are in.

 

[Scared Silly]

The crew deck is fairly trivial. But it is a regulation, the fact that the boat did not meet it is clear and it isn’t a hard to discover issue. It was in the face of every coast guardsman who was ever on the boat.

So the fact that not a single one ever noticed is a sign that they treated inspections very casually and as a paper work box checking exercise.

Can you provide a link to where it is stated they did not meet it?? Your previous post only says what was required. Not that the doors from the bridge did not meet the requirement.

 

[Wookie]

Can you provide a link to where it is stated they did not meet it?? Your previous post only says what was required. Not that the doors from the bridge did not meet the requirement.

I would bet anyone lunch or a geedunk that the vessel is required to have exits from spaces. The exits have to lead to passageways that exit the vessel. There is certainly no requirement to exit to the water or the main deck, only to get out of the skin of the ship.

Every space greater than a certain number of cubic feet must have the required number of escape routes. Each escape route must lead to two or more exits from the ship.

Machinery spaces, for instance, almost never exit to the weather decks.

once you are outside the skin of the ship, there is no requirement to have a way into the water, as the coast guard doesn’t want you in the water, unless the ship is going to completely burn or sink.

I see no problem with 3 exits from the wheelhouse/crews quarters and only one ladder to the main deck.

 

[tridacna]

I would bet anyone a geedunk.

You made me look that up.

 

[Wookie]

You made me look that up.

Standard Navy (or Coast Guard) wager, or payment for small favor.