Fire on dive boat Conception in CA

[Wookie]

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.

The Passenger Vessel Association is our lobbying arm. I'm here to tell you, membership is way well worth the money.

 

[Madacub]

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

I don't think I'm mixing anything up. To me, it's a question of plain English.

In my opinion, if a ship passes only due to being grandfathered, it would not be appropriate to say "meets current USCG standards". It would be okay to say "passed USGC inspection". What's your opinion?

I'd be interested in answers from people in the boat industry: Do owners/operators advertise as "meets current USCG standards" when it passes the annual inspectipon only due to being grandfathered in one way or another? I would not have thought so, but maybe that is in fact what is comon practice. If so, that would be an eye opener to me.

 

[fsardone]

I don't think I'm mixing anything up. To me, it's a question of plain English.

In my opinion, if a ship passes only due to being grandfathered, it would not be appropriate to say "meets current USCG standards". It would be okay to say "passed USGC inspection". What's your opinion?

Not in boating and not a native speaker, but in aviation.
If current regulations allows to maintain a current COI or airworthiness certificate for a vessel or Aircraft built to regulations forty years ago ... well it meets current regulations. Justa a different chapter and verse.

 

[Wookie]

I don't think I'm mixing anything up. To me, it's a question of plain English.

In my opinion, if a ship passes only due to being grandfathered, it would not be appropriate to say "meets current USCG standards". It would be okay to say "passed USGC inspection". What's your opinion?

I'd be interested in answers from people in the boat industry: Do owners/operators advertise as "meets current USCG standards" when it passes the annual inspectipon only due to being grandfathered in one way or another? I would not have thought so, but maybe that is in fact what is comon practice. If so, that would be an eye opener to me.

In my opinion, the current standard includes rules for vessels that do not have to meet certain requirements of the Passenger Vessel Safety Act, which may include route limitations, distances from safe harbor, passenger limitations, passenger bunk limitations, limitations due to type of service, including dive boats.

If the regulation has an exemption built in to it, wouldn't you think that you meet the regulation, even if you take advantage of an exemption?

For instance. If a vessel doesn't have overnight accommodations, like a day boat, would you expect it to have to put a smoke detector and means of escape down below? No, because it is exempt from that requirement. Similarly, if a vessel doesn't travel more than 20 miles from a harbor of safe refuge, it can have doors in the watertight bulkheads. If the vessel decides to limit the route, and uses that exemption, is it in or out of compliance with the regulations? I think the only answer is that it's in compliance with current regulations.

I'll stop beating this horse now.

 

[cerich]

I don't think I'm mixing anything up. To me, it's a question of plain English.

In my opinion, if a ship passes only due to being grandfathered, it would not be appropriate to say "meets current USCG standards". It would be okay to say "passed USGC inspection". What's your opinion?

I'd be interested in answers from people in the boat industry: Do owners/operators advertise as "meets current USCG standards" when it passes the annual inspectipon only due to being grandfathered in one way or another? I would not have thought so, but maybe that is in fact what is comon practice. If so, that would be an eye opener to me.

My opinion is simple, current coast guard regulations allow older vessels to be grandfathered, in simple English they are within current USCG standards.

 

[cerich]

Let me suggest that people do a search here on Scubaboard on the subject of the PST high pressure cylinders that were produced under an exemption certificate and how the divers reacted when it looked like for a while that the exemption certificate would not be renewed and people would not by law be able to get their HP exemption PST cylinders hydro tested nor filled, nor would they be lawful for transport.

How many divers have either PST, Worthington or Faber exemption cylinders? Are they all being irresponsible?

 

[Madacub]

Wookie & cerich, thanks. Just to be clear, I'm coming at this from the point of view of a prospective customer.

If I see "meets current USCG standards" I would have assumed this would mean no grandfathering. Otherwise what is the point of saying "current standards"? What would a normal tourist think?

Wookie, exemptions of the sort you wrote are different from grandfathering.

(I understand the purpose etc of grandfathering, so please don't go there again).

 

[Akimbo]

Anyone who studies unusual (freak) accidents learns that they often result from a series of three or more system and minor human errors that compound in unanticipated ways. It is intellectually easy to focus on a single failure, but the vast majority of those have already been discovered and corrected.

Considering the decades long history and phenomenal number human-days of safe operation on this and very similar vessels, I think it is fair to say that the Conception disaster qualifies as a freak accident. The point is don't obsess on the simple when history indicates that the obtuse is likely. Example:

1. Years of voltage surges causes electrical insulation to degrade (surges are are very common on vessels caused by generators and switching between shore power)
2. Minor salt-air corrosion on contacts and wires slightly increases system-wide electrical resistance
3. Two in-tolerance manufacturing flaws on wire insulation happen to be adjacent in a power cable
4. An electrical component develops a short circuit -- coffee pot, light switch, receptacle, refrigerator; it doesn't matter
5. The circuit breaker or fuse for that circuit fails to trip
6. The cable overheats between the two wires with thin insulation and causes adjacent materials to ignite
7. The smoke detector's sensor activates but the control circuit fails to sound the alarm
8. A crew member inspects the space 5 minutes before the smoldering fire under the upholstered benches becomes visible
9. The fire ignites drysuit underwear, life jackets, and upholstery that outgasses compounds that react into a toxic gas that causes rapid unconsciousness.

Taking any item out of this sequence could prevent disaster. Evacuation time is not a factor in this scenario, but minimizing it is always desirable -- until you are the poor guy sleeping on an open deck. Life is about finding compromises that suck the least.

 

[cerich]

Wookie & cerich, thanks. Just to be clear, I'm coming at this from the point of view of a prospective customer.

If I see "meets current USCG standards" I would have assumed this would mean no grandfathering. Otherwise what is the point of saying "current standards"? What would a normal tourist think?

Wookie, exemptions of the sort you wrote are different from grandfathering.

(I understand the purpose etc of grandfathering, so please don't go there again).

If your car is 10 years old and does not meet all current new car certification standards, do you tell everyone that you give a ride to?

 

[Wookie]

Wookie & cerich, thanks. Just to be clear, I'm coming at this from the point of view of a prospective customer.

If I see "meets current USCG standards" I would have assumed this would mean no grandfathering. Otherwise what is the point of saying "current standards"? What would a normal tourist think?

Wookie, exemptions of the sort you wrote are different from grandfathering.

(I understand the purpose etc of grandfathering, so please don't go there again).

So maybe grandfathering is the wrong word, except the vessel has certain exemptions based on it's age, which is fairly old for a boat.

The common term among boat owners and inspectors is "grandfathered", as in, "this boat falls under Old T", however, it is important to note that many upgrades were done, it supposedly had CO2 in the engineroom, which falls under "New T".