Feinstein introduces legislation to improve passenger vessel safety

[pauldw]

I think that when a federal agency that’s in the business of writing regulations says a new set of suggested laws or regulations is redundant and burdensome, their opinion should be seriously considered.

The news story says USCG said: "But the Coast Guard rejected those calls, calling them “unnecessarily burdensome and a duplication of existing requirements.” If that's accurate reporting (and I know that's an "if"), it raises the question: so which is it? Unnecessarily burdensome, or a duplication of existing requirements? Because if it's the latter, then they're saying that there's nothing new here, just a restatements of existing rules, and that those rules are unnecessarily burdensome already (that "and" is the interesting word in the quote). If those rules don't already exist but would be unnecessarily burdensome if implemented, they why the statement that they're duplicative? Can anyone make sense of this reporting?

 

[Scraps]

The news story says USCG said: "But the Coast Guard rejected those calls, calling them “unnecessarily burdensome and a duplication of existing requirements.” If that's accurate reporting (and I know that's an "if"), it raises the question: so which is it? Unnecessarily burdensome, or a duplication of existing requirements? Because if it's the latter, then they're saying that there's nothing new here, just a restatements of existing rules, and that those rules are unnecessarily burdensome already (that "and" is the interesting word in the quote). If those rules don't already exist but would be unnecessarily burdensome if implemented, they why the statement that they're duplicative? Can anyone make sense of this reporting?

I don't think the release was written carefully enough to warrant such close parsing. I've seen a few NTSB reports. They often have a list of recommendations, and Coast Guard is obliged to respond to each. The most likely explanation is that the Coast Guard said some items on the list were unnecessarily burdensome and others were a duplication of existing requirements--and the proposed legislation wraps all of them up in one package.

 

[Wookie]

The news story says USCG said: "But the Coast Guard rejected those calls, calling them “unnecessarily burdensome and a duplication of existing requirements.” If that's accurate reporting (and I know that's an "if"), it raises the question: so which is it? Unnecessarily burdensome, or a duplication of existing requirements? Because if it's the latter, then they're saying that there's nothing new here, just a restatements of existing rules, and that those rules are unnecessarily burdensome already (that "and" is the interesting word in the quote). If those rules don't already exist but would be unnecessarily burdensome if implemented, they why the statement that they're duplicative? Can anyone make sense of this reporting?

I *think* that what the NTSB called for is already regulation. For instance, they wanted maintenance records, in a very specific format, like how passenger planes keep records. Fair enough, NTSB likes things the way they know them, and they work plane wrecks. Coast guard requires maintenance records to be kept, but do not specify a format. On my boat, we kept a maintenance log with a page for every piece of equipment. Whenever we did any maintenance to that equipment, we logged it. Not everyone did their logging as religiously as we did. Some log in the deck log, but I’ve been on boats recently that do not keep a deck log.

So, if NTSB says to the USCG that they want passenger vessels to keep maintenance records on a specific form using a specific format, that would be redundant and burdensome.

Mechanics who work on airplanes are trained and certified, and competent to properly document repairs the way the FAA/NTSB wants. Boat captains and mechanics are..... not as regimented, until you get into blue water shipping.

 

[Johnoly]

.. Or some other rule that makes 80% of all passenger vessels worthless?...

I agree. Depending on your water activity, it's easy to get 'Horse-Blinders' on and only relate to activities we do on boats. But the reality is there are so many different types of activities, no amount regulation is going to solve all the problems.

That's where the CG inspector comes into play. S/He can see what the activity is and then decide. YES they go by regulations, but if the CGI doesn't want the boat to run, they have SO MANY ways to rack up your bill and keep the boat from running. I'd vote to leave it in the inspector's hands, but no matter what (just like airplanes) you'll never stop all the accidents.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

What if there were absolutely no rules or regulations whatsoever and operators were allowed to do whatever they wanted, kind of a self regulated industry. How many would do the right thing and go over and beyond what is required now?
How many would be total run down garbage and a disaster waiting to happen?

Where is the line between too much and not enough regulation. Everyone seems to have a different idea.

Why would more regulation be bad if it was to make sure, or as sure as we can, to not let another Conception disaster happen again if we can do our damndest to make sure we do everything we can to help it.
At what point do the freedoms of not being overburdened by too much regulation take priority over the lives of innocent people?
What happened on the Conception had several issues that caused the death of those people. IMO, the current accepted standards and the self regulation part of it fell very short.

 

[Manatee Diver]

What if there were absolutely no rules or regulations whatsoever and operators were allowed to do whatever they wanted, kind of a self regulated industry. How many would do the right thing and go over and beyond what is required now?
How many would be total run down garbage and a disaster waiting to happen?

You are involved in one, for the most part scuba is a self-regulating industry in the US. So if you want to see how companies operate without a whole lot of regulation you can see it.

 

[Michael Jastrzebski]

So far there is zero evidence that escape exists (or their number) had anything to do with this accidents if as suspected all fatalities were result of smoke inhalation. I am very leery of Dianne Feinstein’s knee jerk legislation.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

You are involved in one, for the most part scuba is a self-regulating industry in the US. So if you want to see how companies operate without a whole lot of regulation you can see it.

I think an unregulated marine industry would be way worse than an unregulated scuba industry.
Scuba is for the most part an individual sport. Boating, charters, and the maritime industry involves a lot more that just one single person or a buddy team.
A self regulated marine industry where an operator is responsible for lives involving paying customers would be a disaster. I don’t believe the majority of operators would have the integrity to run a first class and safe operation. But that’s just my opinion, nothing more than, so not being any sort of professional holding any special certification take my opinion for what it’s worth, not much.
I used to be in the marine repair industry and have dealt with people who ran or wanted to run charter operations. I found that the main concern for most of them was to spend as little as they could and just patch stuff instead of fixing something correctly from the core.
I had to refuse to do repairs several times because the owner cheaped out and just wanted a cover up job. I would get my ass sued off if something happened or a repair failed due to incorrect procedures. My insurance wouldn’t cover negligence on my part.

Some of the crap I saw was scary.
I do understand boat construction and materials.
I’ve worked with many marine surveyors. Some of them were right-on and some were a joke. More times than not after they were done surveying a vessel and giving it a clean bill of health I would find problems on my own that they missed involving critical structural problems.

 

[NAM001]

Didnt the berthing space have 2 exits but only one really usable as the other was above someones bunk. NOt really accessable?

 

[NAM001]

What if there were absolutely no rules or regulations whatsoever and operators were allowed to do whatever they wanted, kind of a self regulated industry. How many would do the right thing and go over and beyond what is required now?
How many would be total run down garbage and a disaster waiting to happen?

Where is the line between too much and not enough regulation. Everyone seems to have a different idea.

Why would more regulation be bad if it was to make sure, or as sure as we can, to not let another Conception disaster happen again if we can do our damndest to make sure we do everything we can to help it.
At what point do the freedoms of not being overburdened by too much regulation take priority over the lives of innocent people?
What happened on the Conception had several issues that caused the death of those people. IMO, the current accepted standards and the self regulation part of it fell very short.

The problem with any regulation is the interpretation of it. You could have 5 inspectors and get 5 different results for 5 different reasons. You have to say that the primary maintenance log is form 1234 x then it will not be called redundant. I do however agree with operators haveing to do inspections is being redundant in some conditions. The next thing about regulations is the liability factors that most do not want to take on and it ends up with some company doing it and the price is nothing less than gouging, making it hard to stay in operation and as such initiates corner cutting. Businesses have a way to remain liability free by contracting the GET SUED OVER items out to contractors, it allows the operator to be blind and say it was XYZ corp that was responsible.

So far there is zero evidence that escape exists (or their number) had anything to do with this accidents if as suspected all fatalities were result of smoke inhalation. I am very leery of Dianne Feinstein’s knee jerk legislation.

as I understood it the legislation was spurred by the Ca. accident but the contents of the bill was in response to many accidents over the years
.