Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[Madacub]

Not necessarily. It means the boat had to conform to the standards is was built to, and was inspected as such. It met the standards that applied to it. It did not have to meet (all) the standards implemented after it was built.

But it says "...meets current USCG standards..." I understand what being grandfathered means, but then why specifically say "...current standards..."?

 

[ijdod]

But it says "...meets current USCG standards..." I understand what being grandfathered means, but then why specifically say "...current standards..."?

I see your point. Personally, I read that as 'the standards that currently apply to it'.

 

[cerich]

But it says "...meets current USCG standards..." I understand what being grandfathered means, but then why specifically say "...current standards..."?

Grandfathering is allowed by current USCG standards.

 

[Esprise Me]

I've kept up with the thread, but I don't recall seeing anyone state specifically what has changed in those regulations. What features of the Conception would have to be modified if one were building a new boat from scratch to run the same kind of operation?

 

[Madacub]

Grandfathering is allowed by current USCG standards.

I know. But saying "Grandfathering is allowed by current USCG standards" is different than saying "meets current USGC standards". Otherwise, saying "meets current USGC standards" doesn't really say very much.

But cerich, since we are on this, and since I think you were at least one of those that brought up the issue of grandfathering, do we know that it would not have passed but for the grandfathering? I'm not sure about that. I hope I'm not nitpicking.

 

[cerich]

I know. But saying "Grandfathering is allowed by current USCG standards" is different than saying "meets current USGC standards". Otherwise, saying "meets current USGC standards" doesn't really say very much.

But cerich, since we are on this, and since I think you were at least one of those that brought up the issue of grandfathering, do we know that it would not have passed but for the grandfathering? I'm not sure about that. I hope I'm not nitpicking.

An airplane that was built as a certified aircraft in 1950 is still certified and meets all FAA regs, it wouldn't if a clean sheet design and new production meet current FAR part 23. It's the same as older homes, older cars etc. They meet current regulations to be in use, which is not saying they meet current construction and certification rules.

You're be mixing them up. Regs for use versus new construction regs

 

[doctormike]

An airplane that was built as a certified aircraft in 1950 is still certified and meets all FAA regs, it wouldn't if a clean sheet design and new production meet current FAR part 23. It's the same as older homes, older cars etc. They meet current regulations to be in use, which is not saying they meet current construction and certification rules.

You're be mixing them up. Regs for use versus new construction regs

Yes, but it's a good point.

I understand that for practical reasons, grandfathering makes sense. Everything is a risk vs. benefit analysis, and in some cases, that analysis says that it's not worth completely scrapping a boat, plane or building every time some advance in technology or design results a safety improvement over the older version. On the other hand, sometimes we actually DO that, and write new regulations that apply to engineering that was up to code when it was first implemented. For example, asbestos.

So perhaps for the purposes of this discussion, it's worth making that distinction more clear. Yes, it's totally legal for an old design to pass an inspection that it would fail if it was new construction, and it might be totally reasonable from a safety viewpoint as well. There is never going to be perfect safety. But any one particular incident it might actually change that regulation, and require changes in old designs with future inspections. Of course, that remains to be seen as far as this specific case, but it's not an unreasonable consideration in general.

 

[cerich]

Yes, but it's a good point.

I understand that for practical reasons, grandfathering makes sense. Everything is a risk vs. benefit analysis, and in some cases, that analysis says that it's not worth completely scrapping a boat, plane or building every time some advance in technology or design results a safety improvement over the older version. On the other hand, sometimes we actually DO that, and write new regulations that apply to engineering that was up to code when it was first implemented. For example, asbestos.

So perhaps for the purposes of this discussion, it's worth making that distinction more clear. Yes, it's totally legal for an old design to pass an inspection that it would fail if it was new construction, and it might be totally reasonable from a safety viewpoint as well. There is never going to be perfect safety. But any one particular incident it might actually change that regulation, and require changes in old designs with future inspections. Of course, that remains to be seen as far as this specific case, but it's not an unreasonable consideration in general.

The will of the people, and even the regulatory bodies often will collide with political will and lobbies.

If any substantial changes that cost money come out of this as regards dive charters or even more so from overnight charters in general, expect more cash thrown at lobbying than would take to fix from industry. Yes, that is cynical.

 

[Wookie]

For those interested, here is the new passenger vessel inspection guide published by Sector New York and applicable to all new vessels.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiylN_D-cPkAhVmU98KHe8bDq8QFjAAegQIAhAC&url=https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/Attachments/1926/Small%20Passenger%20Vessel%20Guide%20NY%20published.pdf&usg=AOvVaw36PG5cX1a6OWlYwVzViA5Q

I have posted the exemptions upthread, but for those who want to just jump in and comment, here they are again, and are found in 46 CFR 175.118

(a) The Passenger Vessel Safety Act of 1993 (PVSA) contained an allowance for the exemption of certain passenger vessels that are -

(1) At least 100 gross tons but less than 300 gross tons; or

(2) Former public vessels of at least 100 gross tons but less than 500 gross tons.

(b) The owner or operator of a vessel must have applied for an exemption under PVSA by June 21, 1994, and then brought the vessel into compliance with the interim guidance in Navigation and Inspection Circular (NVIC) 7-94 not later than December 21, 1996. The PVSA exemption is valid for the service life of the vessel, as long as the vessel remains certified for passenger service. If the Certificate of Inspection (COI) is surrendered or otherwise becomes invalid (not including a term while the vessel is out of service but undergoing an inspection for recertification), the owner or operator must meet the appropriate inspection regulations to obtain a new COI without the PVSA exemption.

(c) Except where the provisions of subchapter H of this chapter apply, the owner or operator must ensure that the vessel meets the requirements of this subchapter, meets any requirements the OCMI deems applicable, and meets any specific additions or exceptions as follows:

(1) If a vessel does not meet the intact stability requirements of subchapter S of this chapter, the vessel's route(s) will be limited to an area within 20 nautical miles from a harbor of safe refuge, provided the vessel has a history of safe operation on those waters. The OCMI may further restrict the vessel's routes if the vessel's service history, condition, or other factors affect its seaworthiness or safety.

(2) The vessel may not carry more than 150 passengers, and not more than 49 passengers in overnight accommodations.

(3) The owner or operator must crew the vessel under the requirements of this subchapter. All officers must be endorsed for the appropriate vessel tonnage. The OCMI may require an appropriately endorsed engineer officer for those vessels of at least 200 gross tons. Vessels carrying more than 50 passengers must have an additional deckhand, and all deckhands on vessels carrying more than 50 passengers must be adequately trained. The crew members on a vessel of at least 200 gross tons, except those operated exclusively on lakes and rivers, are required to hold merchant mariner credentials or merchant mariner documents and 50 percent of the merchant mariner credentials or at least an able seaman.

(4) The vessel owner or operator must comply with the lifesaving arrangements located in part 180 of this chapter, except that inflatable liferafts are required for primary lifesaving. A rescue boat or suitable rescue arrangement must be provided to the satisfaction of the OCMI.

(5) The vessel owner or operator must comply with the fire protection requirements located in part 181 of this chapter. When a vessel fails to meet the fire protection and structural fire protection requirements of this subchapter, the vessel owner or operator must meet equivalent requirements to the satisfaction of the cognizant OCMI or submit plans for approval from the Coast Guard Marine Safety Center.

(6) At a minimum, the owner or operator must outfit the vessel with portable fire extinguishers per 46 CFR 76.50. In addition, the vessel must meet any additional requirements of the OCMI, even if they exceed the requirements in 46 CFR 76.50.

(7) In addition to the means-of-escape requirements of 46 CFR 177.500, the vessel owner or operator must also meet the requirements for means of escape found in 46 CFR 78.47-40.

(d) The OCMI conducts an inspection and may issue a COI if the vessel meets these requirements. The COI's condition of operation must contain the following endorsement: “This vessel is operating under an exemption afforded in The Passenger Vessel Safety Act of 1993 and as such is limited to domestic voyages and a maximum ___ of passengers and may be subject to additional regulations and restrictions as provided for in Sections 511 and 512 of the Act.”

 

[cerich]

The will of the people, and even the regulatory bodies often will collide with political will and lobbies.

If any substantial changes that cost money come out of this as regards dive charters or even more so from overnight charters in general, expect more cash thrown at lobbying than would take to fix from industry. Yes, that is cynical.

Which is not to say that responsible operators won't learn lessons from this and look at how they do things and make some positive changes before any regulations change, they will.

Plus, a design factor that may have come in play in a emergency that is concerning may actually be mitigated upstream by addressing what lead to that design factor becoming a problem and mitigation upstream may indeed make the less than ideal design factor still not an unacceptable factor.