Liveaboards vs day trip boats safety differences

[tursiops]

True, more like 150 annually from coconuts.

FACT CHECK: Do Falling Coconuts Kill More People Than Sharks Each Year?

This factoid has been repeated so often it might as well be true, but "research" on which it is based is a press release for a travel agency with remarkably comprehensive health insurance coverage.

www.snopes.com

Are 150 people killed each year by falling coconuts?

www.straightdope.com

 

[boulderjohn]

Unfortunately, my observation is that many divers are more interested in the price they pay rather than safety. You get what you pay for. If divers demanded a higher level of safety, perhaps it would exist.

I responded to a comment like this on another thread. I do think it's true that divers planning liveaboard trips do focus on price, but I do not think they are choosing price over safety. I don't think anyone is saying, "I have a good chance of dying because of the poor safety on this liveaboard, but I will choose it over this very safe one to save $300."

I think people assume that liveaboards they are considering all meet an acceptable baseline of safety, and they have no information to the contrary. In the case of the Red Sea boat that burned shortly after the Conception fire, the passengers grilled the crew about safety and got all sorts of assurances. How could they know the crew was flat out lying about it? How would the crew of the Conception have known that the boat did not use the required night watch?

People examining liveaboard choices do not have any way of knowing how safe the boats are. Even if safety policies are spelled out in the literature, they have no way of knowing if they will actually be followed.

 

[kammel78]

The author's premise appears to be that LoB operations need to be better regulated, and all I can say is be very careful what you wish for.

I'm confused by this statement. Are you arguing that we shouldn't wish for better regulated LoB operations with the intent to reduce the chance of people dying? Like, we're not discussing people dropping tanks on their toes or hitting their head on a bulkhead, we're talking about people trying to enjoy a relatively safe hobby and not getting burned alive, right?

 

[Lorenzoid]

Including safety measures in liveaboard reviews may be the best course. Some have been doing it here on SB already. I haven't looked at Undercurrent in a while, though I'm a subscriber. I'd rather read about whether there were escape hatches located properly, a roving night watch, etc., than how good the food was.

 

[kammel78]

I responded to a comment like this on another thread. I do think it's true that divers planning liveaboard trips do focus on price, but I do not think they are choosing price over safety. I don't think anyone is saying, "I have a good chance of dying because of the poor safety on this liveaboard, but I will choose it over this very safe one to save $300."

I think people assume that liveaboards they are considering all meet an acceptable baseline of safety, and they have no information to the contrary. In the case of the Red Sea boat that burned shortly after the Conception fire, the passengers grilled the crew about safety and got all sorts of assurances. How could they know the crew was flat out lying about it? How would the crew of the Conception have known that the boat did not use the required night watch?

People examining liveaboard choices do not have any way of knowing how safe the boats are. Even if safety policies are spelled out in the literature, they have no way of knowing if they will actually be followed.

Agree with John here.

Divers verifying that safety procedures on vessels exist and taken seriously is a reasonable expectation. Expecting divers to validate that those safety procedures are sufficient for all probable accident scenarios is not a reasonable expectation.

 

[Belzelbub]

Not so easy to find, I would imagine the list is still not complete. 2023 was a bad year.

Perhaps intentional, but it appears there is a major one missing from 2019. Conception Fire.

That one would probably be considered an outlier due to the huge loss of life which would significantly skew the results.

 

[DreadnoughtNH]

I'm confused by this statement. Are you arguing that we shouldn't wish for better regulated LoB operations with the intent to reduce the chance of people dying? Like, we're not discussing people dropping tanks on their toes or hitting their head on a bulkhead, we're talking about people trying to enjoy a relatively safe hobby and not getting burned alive, right?

I do not suggest safety take a backseat -- quite the opposite. My comment is based on the economics of the business; are divers willing to pay more for safety (or the illusion of it)?

 

[scubadada]

Perhaps intentional, but it appears there is a major one missing from 2019. Conception Fire.

That one would probably be considered an outlier due to the huge loss of life which would significantly skew the results.

Perhaps because the list I posted is for the Red Sea?

That list now has another entry, the Sea Legend fire with 1 fatality in February

 

[drrich2]

This is so outside the bell curve it should be ringing bells throughout the dive industry (see what I did there?)

Interesting assertion bundling some issues that might be useful to tease out.

1.) Absolute vs. Relative Risk. I'll illustrate by way of analogy.

In the U.S. Walmart and Target are major retailers with many locations serving legions of customers, some old, medically frail, etc... It stands to reason a number of people die shopping there through no fault of the retailer (as is also true for hotels, etc...). For sake of argument, let's say Target decided to differentiate itself by having every store employ a full-time medical crisis intervention team (e.g.: EMT, etc...), and after a couple of years, data showed your odds of dying while shopping at Walmart was now 5 times that of shopping at Target. If you previously preferred Walmart, would you switch to Target because Walmart is not frighteningly dangerous, 'outside the bell curve?'

Many of us would not. If the threat beforehand was deemed well within acceptable limits, cutting it by 80% wouldn't be compelling, particularly if the price went up.

But if the risk of shopping at Walmart were deemed too high, that would be different.

And if the risks were thought due to dangerous practices at Walmart (e.g.: frequently neglecting spills creating fall risks), that would be different.

2.) Cost-Benefit Analysis. Let's look at some possible interventions from an earlier post:

SOLAS vessels require a crewmember to be a Medical Person in Charge. That position (Mel was mine) is equivalent of an EMT-Basic, although the class is tailored to being shipboard where you don't necessarily have a doctor available 24/7.

Particularly given that a number of staff likely have 1st aid training, would I be willing to pay, oh, say, another $200 for an otherwise identical trip just to have a ship environment-focused EMT (or similar) onboard? What if a 3rd option cost $500 more but you get a family physician onboard?

SOLAS vessels are required to have duplicate means of satellite communication 24/7

Sounds nice, but in the real world setting of liveaboards how much of a 'value add' is this likely to be?

SOLAS vessels are required to have a system to keep the watchstander awake. And watchstanders are not night rovers, they are moving the ship from one place to another.

Since the Conception disaster I imagine this is expected. Like the desire for a 2nd exit from confined (e.g.: below decks) staterooms, the safety argument is compelling.

SOLAS vessels have a second watchstander awake.

So like 2 roving night watches? Now we're packing on extra staff and running up the bill.

So we're left with some basic questions:

1.) What are your odds of serious injury or death per day on a given liveaboard, or liveaboards in that category?

2.) What additional amount of money leads to what reduction in that risk?

3.) Is it worth that amount of money to cut risk that much?

I haven't seen reliable hard numbers and the decision is personal. With other things, we often do thoughtful cost-benefit consideration. How much money would it cost me to buy how much additional safety?

 

[Belzelbub]

Perhaps because the list I posted is for the Red Sea?

That list now has another entry, the Sea Legend fire with 1 fatality in February

Gotcha. I missed that. Figured there must be a reason for the obvious omission. Geographical boundary is a good reason.

And a big "Duh" on my part. You clearly labeled that list, and I completely overlooked it.