Conception Indictments

[lexvil]

At some point the CG has to trust that the operator is doing it right. Although had they asked during annual safety “how does your roving watch document rounds” would have solved a lot of problems. But as I said upthread somewhere, annual safety is a spot check of requirements. The CG would never have time to verify 100% compliance with every regulation.

Trust but verify

 

[Storker]

The Captain cannot blame the company, the Captain is THE one person who should have raised a red flag and required a roving watch.

In my world, the captain only answers to God when on board. If even that. The captain on a ship is all-powerful and carries all of the responsibility. If they say "jump", the only acceptable answer is "how high?"

The captain can't blame anyone. Their decisions are theirs alone.

 

[lexvil]

Correct, but it does not excuse Truth. If I murder someone in cold blood, the fact that other people kill people in cold blood does not exonerate me, and it does not make me a good person.

Absolutely I only ask that people take the broader view, not lock on to one operation as this may be a much broader issue, preventing the next tragedy should be the focus, those responsible in the Conception’s loss of life will be held to account, that in the short term will make all operations safer but with time the vigilance will fade.

 

[pauldw]

The captain on a ship is all-powerful and carries all of the responsibility.

 

[kelemvor]

Absolutely I only ask that people take the broader view, not lock on to one operation as this may be a much broader issue, preventing the next tragedy should be the focus, those responsible in the Conception’s loss of life will be held to account, that in the short term will make all operations safer but with time the vigilance will fade.

I think your goal of taking a broader view will be served in the only way it can. The captain "going down" will serve as a reminder to other captains to get their **** together. If they don't then they'll be held liable if things go sideways. It's kind of unfortunate that he'll have to be jailed but if he wasn't then there would be no reason for other captains to improve.

I think the changes may very well be dramatic. Consider drifting dan and how sweeping the resulting changes were. I don't believe that anyone died or went to jail in that incident.

Also, the discussion about batteries will likely bring about new USCG regulations regarding batteries. Not applicable at all to the criminal case, but of import to everyone who wasn't on the ill fated 24 hour cruise.

 

[boulderjohn]

Consider drifting dan and how sweeping the resulting changes were. I don't believe that anyone died or went to jail in that incident.

The most important effect in that case, IMO, had more to do with what happened in the courtroom than what happened on the dive. People have heavily criticized the defense in that case, saying at least one mistake led to a precedent-setting decision that was (and possibly still is) potentially devastating to the dive industry.

 

[Shasta_man]

It's a tangent, but one worth dealing with briefly. I don't think it's people not caring about their safety. It's one of perceived risk. Some of us didn't know a roving watch was required. We know 'crap happens,' and could see there was one practical exit from below decks (which remains a reality on a number of other liveaboards), and we chose to do live-aboard trips knowing all that...and some of us didn't think there was (or know there was supposed to be) a constant roving watch all night just in case a fire broke out or similar disaster. We accepted the risk.

So the question becomes...when there's no roving watch, there's a risk, but how big is it? How does it compare to the risk of an acute medical event underwater, immersion pulmonary edema, hostile sea life, a major down current, or a range of other things that are highly unlikely on a given dive but do happen? It's hard to be objective about that in the wake of the Conception disaster with 34 deaths, but it's important. I imagine it's hard to be objective about the low risk of shark attack if you knew someone who got killed by a great white.

My point is, I don't equate willingness to go on a trip with an operation that didn't have a roving watch (but very likely does now!) amounts to reckless disregard for one's safety. We all make judgment calls about risk...usually without knowing the specific % change of serious injury or death, and often inconstantly (taking a bigger risk and passing on a smaller one).

I'll post this because it is an important tangent.

To clarify my earlier comments regarding peoples safety, I was referring to comments I saw made after it was clear what had happened. Prior to this incident, I was equally ignorant of the regulation for a roving watch.

<<So the question becomes...when there's no roving watch, there's a risk, but how big is it?>>

That question is exactly my point. If I actually consider it, it only takes me a few moments of thought about having no one watching for hours on something as complex as a boat with electrical and flammable liquids and then stack on surrounded by 55 degree water to realize that it's a very important issue. I can stack on they made regulations about it and the people on the board with the experience readily condemn it and strongly.

Two important things are missing in the equation which are your choices and the reward for your risk. You have many choices and your reward is a boat ride. So what.

Reckless is a strong word but my point is if you are aware of the risks and have choices, I have a hard time squaring that against your reward. While others may decide differently, I encourage people to consider it this way..

 

[uwxplorer]

I think the changes may very well be dramatic. Consider drifting dan and how sweeping the resulting changes were. I don't believe that anyone died or went to jail in that incident.

So dramatic were the changes that exactly the same failure to do a proper roll call led to a diver being left in the water by the same company a few years later, with the diver never to be seen again and thus presumably dead.
No jail, and the boat is still happily ferrying divers around...

 

[Wookie]

So dramatic were the changes that exactly the same failure to do a proper roll call led to a diver being left in the water by the same company a few years later, with the diver never to be seen again and thus presumably dead.
No jail, and the boat is still happily ferrying divers around...

As is the Captain.

 

[uwxplorer]

As is the Captain.

I guess that the USCG decided that the probation period was over and everything was all good again:
Long Beach Dive Boat Operator Surrenders Credentials
The point is that most of us had great fun on all these boats, but the tacit assumption is that the liability release signed by all divers (which typically includes terms such as found on that of the Raptor boat, i.e. "in the absence of intentional wrongful conduct and/or gross negligence", anything that happens to you is not the boat's responsibility), does not free the boat (and by extension, the company) from a minimum of precautions.
If no legal charges are pressed, it appears that the USCG is sole rule making, judge and executioner?