Dive boat down

[Christi]

wow. That's a little harsh. So the reason isn't know except it isn't negligence. That was quick.

And I think it is perfectly reasonable to question why a boat that serves customers went down. It is naive to say its nobody's business.

You do more harm than good saying things like that.

Information is and has been forthcoming - it's just not good enough for some of you - that is my point.

I am posting with permission for the owner - with the facts - but I should know better that won't prevent speculation and suspicion of a conspiracy cover-up theory.

I will only post information and facts on the situation as they are available from here forward - no commentary from me.

---------- Post added May 22nd, 2014 at 06:05 PM ----------

I'm with Christi on this. I appreciate that people want to know what happens when paying customers are on board. But your rights end where what an owner must legally disclose ends. If there is no legal requirement to disclose, then you are at the mercy of what they choose to disclose. There was an early commitment to keep people apprised of what occurred; the boat is barely out of the water...and yet people are saying things like "will we ever find out?". It's a bit churlish to bite the hand that feeds you.

Thank you MMM

---------- Post added May 22nd, 2014 at 06:06 PM ----------

---------- Post added May 22nd, 2014 at 06:05 PM ---------

As of this writing - the boat is still being towed and is not to dry dock yet.

 

[cvchief]

Well MMM there is a difference between right to know and right to question. We certainly don't have any right to know anything. If there is any investigation those investigators answer to the gov and the Mexicans.

But to come in hear and say that we should not ask is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is no different than asking anything else about service provider. To suggest we should not question it implies an arrogance that doesn't match their fine reputation. We have every right in my opinion to ask about anything.

To suggest their is no negligence on one hand and then say the investigation has barely started is suggesting the investigation is predisposed to certain answers.

I imagine there is a good answer. Will we know? Maybe. Probably more likely given the responsible owners.

I am NOT suggesting a coverup.

And you lost me on who is feeding who?

 

[Christi]

Well MMM there is a difference between right to know and right to question. We certainly don't have any right to know anything. If there is any investigation those investigators answer to the gov and the Mexicans.

But to come in hear and say that we should not ask is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is no different than asking anything else about service provider. To suggest we should not question it implies an arrogance that doesn't match their fine reputation. We have every right in my opinion to ask about anything.

To suggest their is no negligence on one hand and then say the investigation has barely started is suggesting the investigation is predisposed to certain answers.

I imagine there is a good answer. Will we know? Maybe. Probably more likely given the responsible owners.

I am NOT suggesting a coverup.

And you lost me on who is feeding who?

Now you are putting words in my mouth/posts again - seems to me that because you THINK there is more information that there is info being with held. As I said, this is a courtesy that I am happy to do - but posting updates on SB in not anyone's first and foremost priority. So if you (collectively) would like to continue to receive updates, some respect and patience would be the right attitude to have. If you (collectively) think the information is lacking or not timely, I'm not taking responsibility for that. I am posting everything I have when I have the time to post. If that isn't good enough for you (collectively), I don't know what to tell you.

I know that many on the other hand are appreciative of the information. Thank you!

 

[Ron Lee]

As I recall the first incident you mention was thought to be some form of extreme failure near the stern, and the boat sank to extreme depth, so recovery and study were not possible. I had friends on the boat at that time, and whatever occurred in that accident it happened with extreme speed.

It becomes a lot easier to determine the cause when you can recover the boat.

As for the other accident you mention, divers did a foolishly deep dive on single AL80's and air. It happens all the time, and sometimes it does not work out so well.

Neither incident ever smelled of cover up from anything that I read at the time they happened, and it sure sounds like there will be answers from this incident pretty quickly.

The boat sinking on the way to Playa del Carmen involved a boat of uncertain history. I do not intend to go back and read every post on it but there were comments/rumors of possible modifications that could have led to a structural failure. Obviously with no boat to inspect it, proof one way or another is impossible. But if any authority on the island investigates an event like this, probable cause(s) might be reached.

The ill-fated deep dive had a reported comment attributed to a participating diver that they encountered a down current. That reported comment resulted in a thread about the dangers of down currents in Cozumel and may have led to some people canceling their trip to Cozumel. Is a statement of a down current being a factor if it was known to be incorrect just a mistake, a cover-up or something else?

The events surrounding the Utah woman who disappeared are sketchy and may also never be known. Is that a cover-up, expected silence if litigation is possible or something else? My guess based upon limited info is that this event offers the greatest possibility of offering suggestions that really could prevent a repeat event.

After Larry mentioned the cooling needs of boat motors, I looked up cooling for inboard boat motors/engines. The schematics that I saw suggests that if a lot of the piping/tubing/pump are internal to the boat, I understand how a failure in that system could be very bad. It would not surprise me that if a problem in that system was at fault, that it may encourage others there to establish a more rigorous inspection and replacement protocol much as I have for the water pump, radiator hoses and fan belt on my vehicle. Sometimes it takes a failure to make changes.

We recently had a fire at a local electricity production plant that shut it down for an unknown period and the subsequent market purchase of electricity at higher rates. The cause has been stated as oil from a line hitting a high temperature component. Here we have a system that likely gets adequate funding for maintenance yet a catastrophic event occurred. It would not surprise me that once they fully identify what failed, that they modify their inspection/replacement procedures or other mitigation methods to prevent a recurrence.

Stuff happens.

 

[RickyF]

This is the first time in quite a while that I have seen actual information being relayed this fast concerning a boat sinking. While there could be many possible causes, they won't be known until the boat is brought ashore and inspected. Any boat that consistently runs in a salt water environment is susceptible to corrosion and it is usually from the inside where it is not easily seen. I am sincerely thankful that no one was injured or killed. Seems like I remember a boat sinking in Florida where people were trapped and killed and we have never heard the actual cause.

Christy, thanks for the timely updates!

 

[cvchief]

Now you are putting words in my mouth/posts again - seems to me that because you THINK there is more information that there is info being with held.

I didn't say that. You just said there would be a full investigation and then you concluded it wasn't negligence while admitting the cause was unknown. And that no one had the right to know. I just thought that wasn't helpful is all. Didn't sound good and encourages that coverup thinking you are trying to avoid.

As I said, this is a courtesy that I am happy to do - but posting updates on SB in not anyone's first and foremost priority. So if you (collectively) would like to continue to receive updates, some respect and patience would be the right attitude to have. If you (collectively) think the information is lacking or not timely, I'm not taking responsibility for that. I am posting everything I have when I have the time to post. If that isn't good enough for you (collectively), I don't know what to tell you.

I know that many on the other hand are appreciative of the information. Thank you!

I appreciate you are providing info from Rita. I ain't in a rush at all and don't believe I said anything to imply that. Personally, I think there is probably a good explanation. It is a discussion board, so we are discussing is all. Now I gotta run to Kondessa for one more or so 'special' margarita. Kris sets a nice table....

 

[diver 85]

new dive site?

Will have to wait several years---to be worth anything..

 

[MMM]

And you lost me on who is feeding who?

When someone is "channelling" the person who is likely to know the most about this accident (the owner), I don't like to cheese them off, lest they decide to stop sharing. OTOH, if you suggest that the one who is feeding the discussion (via the scuttlebutt/speculation picked up from those working in caleta), then I guess it is you. Up to the rest of the members which is the most believable, I guess. I'm picking the former, in this instance just because of history and relationships. I could change my mind at some point but that's what I believe right now.

So by all means speculate and discuss as much as you like. Just realize that a consequence is that you may well lose the one source that will agree to provide a definitive answer.

 

[cvchief]

When someone is "channelling" the person who is likely to know the most about this accident (the owner), I don't like to cheese them off, lest they decide to stop sharing. OTOH, if you suggest that the one who is feeding the discussion (via the scuttlebutt/speculation picked up from those working in caleta), then I guess it is you. Up to the rest of the members which is the most believable, I guess. I'm picking the former, in this instance just because of history and relationships. I could change my mind at some point but that's what I believe right now.

So by all means speculate and discuss as much as you like. Just realize that a consequence is that you may well lose the one source that will agree to provide a definitive answer.

Oh I get you now. Let me be clear my information was rumor and speculation only. Take it with a grain salt. Like my margarita.

I never said otherwise. Just points of discussion.

 

[gypsyjim]

When someone is "channelling" the person who is likely to know the most about this accident (the owner), I don't like to cheese them off, lest they decide to stop sharing. OTOH, if you suggest that the one who is feeding the discussion (via the scuttlebutt/speculation picked up from those working in caleta), then I guess it is you. Up to the rest of the members which is the most believable, I guess. I'm picking the former, in this instance just because of history and relationships. I could change my mind at some point but that's what I believe right now.

So by all means speculate and discuss as much as you like. Just realize that a consequence is that you may well lose the one source that will agree to provide a definitive answer.

It would not be the first time that someone really trying to provide accurate information and dispel wild rumor here on SB might have reason to feel as if they have painted a target on their back.