Liveaboards vs day trip boats safety differences

[boulderjohn]

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.

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.

The Conception was a Coast Guard inspected vessel, so potential customers could rightfully assume that the requirements for a proper 2nd exit and a roving night watch were met. How were they to know that the 2nd exit was bogus and the roving night watch was a lie?

 

[BRT]

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?

No skin off my nose. I doubt I will ever go on a live aboard. But more regulations will raise costs and I suspect it might make any remaining live aboards be even more of a rich person's game.

 

[boulderjohn]

In addition to my previous comments about potential customers having no way of knowing that liveaboards are shirking basic safety requirements, the most critical of these safety requirements are not expensive and would not add much (if anything) to the cost of a trip. The last liveaboard I was on (2 years ago) had an employee dedicated to performing his tasks while acting as a roving night watch. It also had a new fireproof charging station capable of charging all batteries--a one-time cost whose cost would be spread out for the next few thousand passengers. How much would it have cost the Red Sea liveaboard to NOT have one of the crewmembers (maybe someone who could have been the night watch) sleeping on a mattress lying on top of the hatch for the second exit so that passengers could not escape through it?

 

[Wookie]

a proper 2nd exit and a roving night watch were met. How were thy to know that the 2nd exit was bogus

What was bogus about the second exit? It met all requirements in place at both construction and for every annual inspection following.

The new rules didn’t come into effect until this year. I’m workin with another liveaboard to meet them, and, like most hastily enacted rules, it is my opinion that the new rules actually make the vessel less safe, and cost plenty, but meet the new requirements.

 

[boulderjohn]

What was bogus about the second exit? It met all requirements in place at both construction and for every annual inspection following.

I can't believe you are asking this question.

1. It was located as a hatch in the ceiling a couple feet above the top bunk in a 3-bunk area. It would take a borderline gymnastic maneuver to get through it. One corpulent passenger trying to get through it would be the cork in the bottle keeping anyone else from getting out. There is no way a large group of passengers could exit from it in a timely manner.
2. It exited into the same room as the main exit, and that room was fully engulfed in flames.

Yes, it did indeed meet "all requirements in place at both construction and for every annual inspection following." That's the problem. It was still worthless. It tells us that we as potential passengers cannot rely on Coast Guard requirements and inspections as a guide for our safety.

 

[Lorenzoid]

The Conception was a Coast Guard inspected vessel, so potential customers could rightfully assume that the requirements for a proper 2nd exit and a roving night watch were met. How were thy to know that the 2nd exit was bogus and the roving night watch was a lie?

I meant my comment about divers including safety measures in their liveaboard reviews to refer to reviews going forward from what we know now.

 

[kammel78]

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)?

This is a bit of a straw man. The principle argument is whether or not additional regulations such as SOLAS would prevent or cause a substantial reduction in serious injury/death in LoBs, and therefore, warrant consideration. How those additional regulations affect the downstream economics of LoBs is, IMO, a secondary consideration.

No skin off my nose. I doubt I will ever go on a live aboard. But more regulations will raise costs and I suspect it might make any remaining live aboards be even more of a rich person's game.

Some would argue that's as it should be if that's the cost dictated by doing a thing safely. The inverse is we end up with the airline industry where bowing to the pressure of economics could be seen as a major contributing factor and an encouragement for everyone in the industry to cut as many corners, shave as many points, as possible so Billy Bob Baggins can fly 30K feet in the air across the country to drink mai tais in Miami for $300 bucks roundtrip (assuming his exit door doesn't fly off).

 

[kammel78]

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:


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?

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

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.

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?

My two main issues with this line of reasoning is:

1. We've proven humans are horrible at making risk/reward decisions, like reeeally bad, probably worse than the average monkey (I jest but maybe?). So arguments that start with "would a person be willing to pay for x", only speaks to perceived value and not to real value such as the potential reduction in risk. The question is also highly subjective depending on whether you're an average joe or a mulit-millionaire.

2. Looking at "would I be willing to pay $200 for an EMT" - is kinda misleading in that the implicit question is whether or not I think I have a high probability of needing the EMT, and if so, is $200 worth it? The greater question is, am I willing to pay $200 more per trip for every trip to have an EMT which gives N number of people also access to an EMT? Assuming of course in this scenario the rate hike for the EMT is across the board for said LoB.

 

[BRT]

This is a bit of a straw man. The principle argument is whether or not additional regulations such as SOLAS would prevent or cause a substantial reduction in serious injury/death in LoBs, and therefore, warrant consideration. How those additional regulations affect the downstream economics of LoBs is, IMO, a secondary consideration.

Some would argue that's as it should be if that's the cost dictated by doing a thing safely. The inverse is we end up with the airline industry where bowing to the pressure of economics could be seen as a major contributing factor and an encouragement for everyone in the industry to cut as many corners, shave as many points, as possible so Billy Bob Baggins can fly 30K feet in the air across the country to drink mai tais in Miami for $300 bucks roundtrip (assuming his exit door doesn't fly off).

Yep, nothing is as safe as we would like. And nothing is as cheap as we would like. At some safety point very few can afford to be that safe.

 

[scubadada]

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...

Yes, trip price and safety were also discussed in that other recent thread

Vessel - Indo Siren Fire?

You meant Palau Siren: https://masterliveaboards.com/boats/palau-siren/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA67CrBhC1ARIsACKAa8RrRYVbKCkpd85muiEObG8kMlC2I3aXAzQLvdnmiAGanibvXOIzjDwaAiM2EALw_wcB Yes apologies.

scubaboard.com