Liveaboards vs day trip boats safety differences

[cerich]

Liveaboards (and their lack of common sense safety procedures) are a problem, but a study that uses inadequate data at best (I would not call it fraudulent until I actually find the study) can't be taken seriously.

https://taucher.net/tnetdocs/Bachelorthesis_und_Errata_Schiszler_ENG.pdf

here ya go

 

[kammel78]

But his point that no one keeps track is correct. ScubaBoard probably has far better records than anyone does, for both liveaboard fatalaties as well as accidents involving the liveaboard itself.

The thesis actually cites SB.

 

[Vicko]

Page 10.
Statistical analysis.
"Due to these difficult circumstances in obtaining official information, a large number
of accidents were probably not found. Therefore, the data that was found is not completely
reliable."

Page 50. First paragraph of the summary
"For a statistical analysis, 31 accidents from the years 2009 to August 2023 were analyzed.This analysis has a high variance and relatively low significance. The poor data situationdue to a lack of accident reports and thus almost only media articles as sources did notallow a reliable analysis. For this reason, the analysis focuses on the serious accidents that generated media coverage."



It's kind of funny that in the next paragraph it compares the numbers of deaths on FAMEOUS LIVABORARD ACCIDENTS to the amount of deaths in ALL reported merchant shipping accidents in the same period. I do agree with the intention of the study and most of it's conclusions.

I just find some of the claims and conclusions it makes to be based on bad, cherry picked data.

 

[Kendall Raine]

you know that you are making the point that liveaboards are a problem even stronger right?

Yes and no. From a statistical stand point if LOBs are only reporting fatalities, not minor injuries (as @Vicko infers), the fraction of fatalities/total injuries will be high-misleadingly so-if compared to a population of vessels which report slip and falls, broken toes, mashed fingers and other typical on the job injuries aboard a commercial vessel. On the other hand, if LOBs are under reporting all types of injuries that is a problem. The reality is in the details, which we don't have. As a result you're left with a meaningless statistical comparison.

I don't think anyone would argue that safety is an issue on LOBs and that divers, operators and the travel industry are all guilty of lack of focus on this problem. One would have to be blind to the mess in the Red Sea, the Conception disaster (and resulting exposure of USCG's performance) and other problems to think otherwise. Attempting to quantify that is where the problem comes if the numbers being used in the analysis aren't right.

 

[Wookie]

The thesis actually cites SB.

Yes, but ScubaBoard does not keep track. Keeping track, at least to me, is providing data that can be verified and sourced from the official reports. Anything posted here is anecdotal at best, with the possible exception of the Conception fire and the Wave Dancer sinking.

 

[cerich]

Yes and no. From a statistical stand point if LOBs are only reporting fatalities, not minor injuries (as @Vicko infers), the fraction of fatalities/total injuries will be high-misleadingly so-if compared to a population of vessels which report slip and falls, broken toes, mashed fingers and other typical on the job injuries aboard a commercial vessel. On the other hand, if LOBs are under reporting all types of injuries that is a problem. The reality is in the details, which we don't have. As a result you're left with a meaningless statistical comparison.

I don't think anyone would argue that safety is an issue on LOBs and that divers, operators and the travel industry are all guilty of lack of focus on this problem. One would have to be blind to the mess in the Red Sea, the Conception disaster (and resulting exposure of USCG's performance) and other problems to think otherwise. Attempting to quantify that is where the problem comes if the numbers being used in the analysis aren't right.

I believe however that the deaths are the headline, vs injuries like a broken ankle.

 

[kammel78]

Page 10.
Page 50. First paragraph of the summary
"For a statistical analysis, 31 accidents from the years 2009 to August 2023 were analyzed.This analysis has a high variance and relatively low significance. The poor data situationdue to a lack of accident reports and thus almost only media articles as sources did notallow a reliable analysis. For this reason, the analysis focuses on the serious accidents that generated media coverage."



It's kind of funny that in the next paragraph it compares the numbers of deaths on FAMEOUS LIVABORARD ACCIDENTS to the amount of deaths in ALL reported merchant shipping accidents in the same period. I do agree with the intention of the study and most of it's conclusions.

I just find some of the claims and conclusions it makes to be based on bad, cherry picked data.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, and my understanding is this was natively German translated to English so not to get into semantics, but I think he's pointing out that only Famous (i.e. accidents with lots of media coverage) generated enough "real" analysis to be usable. Other, less famous accidents may have only had anecdotally relevant info and were thus ignored. So, if you mean "cherry picked" in the sense that reliable info was cherry-picked, then I agree.

 

[cerich]

Yes, but ScubaBoard does not keep track. Keeping track, at least to me, is providing data that can be verified and sourced from the official reports. Anything posted here is anecdotal at best, with the possible exception of the Conception fire and the Wave Dancer sinking.

using media reports, and then SB to find and verify the media reports, when working in a global non universal accident reporting mechanism is not terribly bad given the limitations. I am sure that it was a discussion with his academic advisor. Obviously for a masters or doctoral thesis/dissertation the burden would be higher, but I don't find it problematic for the level, nor the sources as primary sources from official sources like a .gov. Remember that primary sources include news by reporter witnessed events, or the quotes of those that did witness. So, even primary sources in a big picture are not what would be considered as proof in a court nor in math, engineering or say business where you (should) be using much more quantitative data over qualitative

 

[kammel78]

Yes, but ScubaBoard does not keep track. Keeping track, at least to me, is providing data that can be verified and sourced from the official reports. Anything posted here is anecdotal at best, with the possible exception of the Conception fire and the Wave Dancer sinking.

Agree, I was more or less supporting your statement about the lack of accident tracking. You shouldn't have to resort to SB as a reference. Then again, 32 people shouldn't have to die to get someone's attention, but here we are.

 

[Vicko]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, and my understanding is this was natively German translated to English so not to get into semantics, but I think he's pointing out that only Famous (i.e. accidents with lots of media coverage) generated enough "real" analysis to be usable. Other, less famous accidents may have only had anecdotally relevant info and were thus ignored. So, if you mean "cherry picked" in the sense that reliable info was cherry-picked, then I agree.

Using the news as a source for statistical analysis is problematic because it will only publish the outliers, the worst incidents.

Using the data you derived from those outliers to compare against the data of the European Maritime Safety Agency or insurance providers is pointless, you are comparing a crate of discarded apples with the totality of the orange processing industry.

Cherry picking might be the wrong term.