Wookie
Proud to be a Chaos Muppet
Staff member
ScubaBoard Business Sponsor
ScubaBoard Supporter
Scuba Instructor
I would say, having run similar boats, that normalization of deviance plays a larger role than “no one complained”.At the risk of hoof-mouth disease, I don't see a realistic chance of a limitation ultimately prevailing, where the owner had to have known what the COI said, and must have known that his captains (well at least on Conception) were not provided with enough personnel (say one additional deckhand) to handle the late-night roving watch after the cooks went to bed.
It's the owners who keep the boat(s) in compliance with what the COI requires, and they recieve that new COI every two years, and typically frame it and hang it in the wheelhouse. What I don't get (well, maybe I do) is how the Coast Guard (apparently) didn't know of this serious and chronic deficiency. It's not rare at all for the Coast Guard inspectors (I was one for a while long ago) to get, either by whisper during an inspection, or by an anonymous note or phone call, a crew complaint regarding safety. And it's been my experience that the Coast Guard will do everything they can to protect the complainer's anonymity. The ships with union crews can be more out in the open about this and be protected, unlike the nonunion boats and companies, who don't want to risk getting fired. So unfortunately it seems that the smaller the nonunion crew, the slimmer the chance that anyone will make a complaint. Nevertheless the Captain here should have.
And tactically a big reason for a Limitation proceeding, is that it consolidates all claims into one proceeding (the fancy word is "concursus") avoiding say thirty separate suits in many different jurisdictions.
After all, conception had never burned before. I would be willing to bet that the other 2 boats are run very differently than they were 5 years ago.