Conception Indictments

[Harry Hood]

Press release from the US Attorney's Office:

The indictment alleges that Boylan caused the deaths of 33 passengers and one crewmember “by his misconduct, negligence, and inattention to his duties.” The indictment cites three specific safety violations:

• failing to have a night watch or roving patrol, which was required by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and for over 20 years was a requirement in the Conception’s Certificate of Inspection issued by the United States Coast Guard;
• failing to conduct sufficient fire drills, which are mandated in the CFR; and
• failing to conduct sufficient crew training, which was also required by the CFR.

10 years for each count, potentially.

^^These charges seem open and shut. This is going to be a very difficult case to defend. There must be witnesses from other trips who can testify to the veracity of these allegations from other trips. The other crew members will also be able to testify to what happened on other trips and what SOP really was.
Could other regular crew members also be held responsible? I would think a reasonably prudent person working as a crew member on this boat knew or should have known of these violations-what did they do about it-on this specific trip or others? Could they be also held as being negligent?

I imagine this will all be pled out. Captain's gotta get 10 years or more in prison if this is true. I understand the need and desire for punishment...and we taxpayers are gonna get stuck with the bill for captain's room and board for a decade or more. Such a shame. Its all just so sad. Breaks my heart even after all this time.
I used to dive on the Peace boat a bunch at the Channel Islands. Like many, I shutter with the 'this could have been me' thoughts. My heart still breaks for the victims and families. My anger at the captain, owner and the rest of the crew still boils over.
Does anyone know about potential liability for the battery manufacturers?

 

[O-ring]

IMHO, from what I read/heard from the NTSB report they weren't able to determine the actual cause of the fire so if they can't definitively pin it on batteries there is no liability there.

 

[Harry Hood]

The difference is the Grove deliberately hid and blocked exits, conception was in compliance with the regulations as far as structurally required. New regulations are needed but application to boats makes things that sound simple actually can be quite complicated.

Emotions aside this is not a slam dunk prosecution, the documentation shows compliance.

I don't know the answer-which is why I am asking: If everything was up to code, but the codes were inadequate, could the state or county or whatever agency is in charge of writing those codes be held liable ???

 

[nolatom]

the “codes” are largely Federal, meaning the Coast Guard with respect to US- flag commercial vessels. So doubtful that suing Cali would work.
Suing Uncle Sam is governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the Admiralty Claims Act. Several exceptions to liability make success difficult, including the “discretionary function” doctrine (look it up) for government regulators.

Plus the proximate cause is likely the failure to comply with the existing requirement for a night watchstander.

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

And some inspectors are sleazy.

And some are dumb as a box of rocks.

 

[lexvil]

I don't know the answer-which is why I am asking: If everything was up to code, but the codes were inadequate, could the state or county or whatever agency is in charge of writing those codes be held liable ???

As “Joe diver” should the focus be on liability or correction? Lithium batteries are a new (ish) change and may require new regulations, punishment is best served in the theater of compliance and inspection, if a captain/crew are suspected of falsifying the logs the inspection system should have some undercover inspectors, years ago (maybe still but don’t know) in Ca. There was the Bureau of automobile repair and in response to complaints send out investigators with known mechanical problems on various cars, it was a very successful consumer protection method.

Truth ran a good operation and who would know if the slacked on the night watch thing, I’m a very early riser and don’t recall there ever being a time when someone from the crew wasn’t moving about, yet I never gave it much thought, I would now. The consumers of this service need to be made aware of the rules and be given the resource to report violations, these would be worthy rule changes, think of the elevator permits or workplace safety instructions, we all have a responsibility to know when info is available.

 

[boulderjohn]

Truth ran a good operation and who would know if the slacked on the night watch thing,

Testimony from other captains indicated that they operated under the belief that having a crew member sleep with the customers released them from the need for a roving watch. That is why a crew member died with the customers. That belief is absurd, and a licensed captain should know that. Tell me how sleeping with the customers enables that crew member to spot a fire and sound the alert.

It seems to me that in purposely choosing to use a crew member sleeping with the customers as a substitute for a roving watch, they were relying on the fact that it is highly unlikely that a fire would start during the hours that everyone is asleep. The technical term for that is luck. Luck should not be a key safety feature in your company, so your first few words above should rather be "Truth ran a lucky operation."

 

[lexvil]

Testimony from other captains indicated that they operated under the belief that having a crew member sleep with the customers released them from the need for a roving watch. That is why a crew member died with the customers. That belief is absurd, and a licensed captain should know that. Tell me how sleeping with the customers enables that crew member to spot a fire and sound the alert.

It seems to me that in purposely choosing to use a crew member sleeping with the customers as a substitute for a roving watch, they were relying on the fact that it is highly unlikely that a fire would start during the hours that everyone is asleep. The technical term for that is luck. Luck should not be a key safety feature in your company, so your first few words above should rather be "Truth ran a lucky operation."

Do you suppose that they came up with that plan all on their own but never let on that this was the practice? Truth ran a good operation and if they survive it will probably. Do you dive with any luck? Do you mitigate potential problems with redundancy and do you have redundant redundancy?

a trained crew member could be a great thing if they were in the compartment with the passengers and were there to assist in evac.

 

[Bob DBF]

Testimony from other captains indicated that they operated under the belief that having a crew member sleep with the customers released them from the need for a roving watch.

That would be, other Truth captains, I don't believe any others were questioned.

If that belief doesn't have a letter from the USCG stating it is acceptable, it's just blowing smoke. The captain cut corners and will pay for it, unfortunalty others had to pay first.

 

[boulderjohn]

Do you suppose that they came up with that plan all on their own but never let on that this was the practice? Truth ran a good operation and if they survive it will probably. Do you dive with any luck? Do you mitigate potential problems with redundancy and do you have redundant redundancy?

a trained crew member could be a great thing if they were in the compartment with the passengers and were there to assist in evac.

Do you believe that the only purpose of a roving watch is to assist passengers in an evacuation? Do you believe that fire is of so little consequence on a boat that the possibility of one can be ignored as a matter of standard policy? Do you have any sense of how much help that crew member on the Conception was able to provide in the evacuation before she burned to death with the others?

We face risks every day in life, and we have to evaluate the degree to which we need to prepare for them. In that evaluation, we look at the likelihood that something will happen and the consequences if it does. If the combination of likelihood and consequence is determined to be relatively safe, we take the risk. A fire on a boat like this is very unlikely, but the consequences are dire. That is why a roving watch is required by law. Truth Aquatics intentionally decided that the fact that a fire is unlikely made violating the law requiring a roving watch a reasonable risk, even though they had to know that the consequences would be catastrophic. In your view, that makes then a good organization. My opinion is different.