It seems we’re doing a lot of wrestling over “sweeping regulation” when, for me, this really boils down to a vessel operator identifying known or potential fire hazards and taking proper precautions to mitigate the chance of fire, something I think is an inherent responsibility of an individual (and any crew) operating a vessel. Of course, the natural sequel to mitigation is an emergency response and evacuation plan that highlights all the exits.
Because divers travel to developing nations where oversight is often significantly less rigorous or even totally absent, if one chooses a vessel with a crew whose training, qualifications and discipline are suspect, then one takes his chances but reserves the right to cancel (costly as it may be).
I think in the event of a fire, an aircraft underway has even less response options than a waterborne craft. The airline industry seems to have gotten along fine by adjusting practices to compensate for the fire hazard of lithium batteries without a major re-design of fuselages across the aviation industry.
The article impugns the US Coast Guard, something I find distasteful. While I know the USCG is not perfect, I also know they work their tails off every single day of the week enforcing basic regulations under violation from ignorance, ineptitude or willful negligence but also saving people who were properly prepared but overwhelmed by the might of the sea.
I think perhaps closer inspection and enforcement of existing regulations is in order rather than a legislative action that may have been intended to assuage the emotionally distraught. I would find it hard to believe the USCG has not issued adequate advisories to vessel operators about the dangers of known and emergent fire hazards and the proper measures necessary to mitigate the potential fire.
Because divers travel to developing nations where oversight is often significantly less rigorous or even totally absent, if one chooses a vessel with a crew whose training, qualifications and discipline are suspect, then one takes his chances but reserves the right to cancel (costly as it may be).
I think in the event of a fire, an aircraft underway has even less response options than a waterborne craft. The airline industry seems to have gotten along fine by adjusting practices to compensate for the fire hazard of lithium batteries without a major re-design of fuselages across the aviation industry.
The article impugns the US Coast Guard, something I find distasteful. While I know the USCG is not perfect, I also know they work their tails off every single day of the week enforcing basic regulations under violation from ignorance, ineptitude or willful negligence but also saving people who were properly prepared but overwhelmed by the might of the sea.
I think perhaps closer inspection and enforcement of existing regulations is in order rather than a legislative action that may have been intended to assuage the emotionally distraught. I would find it hard to believe the USCG has not issued adequate advisories to vessel operators about the dangers of known and emergent fire hazards and the proper measures necessary to mitigate the potential fire.
