NTSB CONCEPTION HEARING - THIS TUESDAY @ 10AM

[Michael3826]

The phrase I'm using is: Harsh but fair. Very critical of Truth Aquatics .

They killed 34 people. One of their own crew members. Glen Fritzler, your buddy, did it without remorse. He sued those 34 dead people without hesitation and tried to call them “family.” Deplorable.

Is it harsh? Really? Are you joking?
They’re about to be criminally charged.
criminally charged with 34 deaths!
is that too harsh?
Too harsh for your little friend glen?
Too harsh on the live aboard industry?
too harsh because you don’t want to pay extra money beyond your already elitist sport?
oh nooo.... how sad.
How sad for all of you.
Shane in you and the rest of the community for trying to support Truth Aquatics.

If you all are worried live aboards won’t survive then you should be blaming glen Fritzler and his company and all off his captains past and present. They created that culture of complacency for decades. They taught other captains and crew how to operate that way. Glen will tell you he pioneered the scuba live aboard industry and set the standard for it. Well good for you bro. Now you get to suffer those consequences.
For 30+ years they were lucky. NTSB has evidence they illegally operated without a night watch on all vessels, conception, truth, and vision. They even let uncertified deckhands captain the ship at night.
illegal.

He gave the impression that his company was the best and safest. But that’s only because they lied through their teeth for decades. That’s not safe, that’s dumb luck.
like Jennifer Homendy of ntsb said, the deaths of 34 people is not an accident. “it is not an accident if you fail to operate your company safely.” That is gross negligence and appearing to be manslaughter.
is that too harsh?

they couldn’t do their job. The job those 34 expected them to do. At minimum, they expected the laws to be followed. No paying passenger got on that boat knowing a night watch was required, but none was ever assigned.

in my opinion not enough blame was placed on glen Fritzler and his staff. Nor was it harsh enough. You should all be pissed at glen for f-ing it up.
Read the reports. He was interviewed. he’s throwing Jerry under the bus. He’s trying to say he had no responsibility over that boat. He puts the blame on Jerry. He can’t even recall when he last went in the conception. So he doesn’t even do his own yearly inspection? It’s his boat, he owns it. not Jerry.
What a Class act.

 

[Cert1967]

It's very sad that there has to be a tragedy before regulations are introduced (SOLAS). I believe this was America's worst maritime disaster in modern history but it didn't stop a vitriolic thread on Facebook demonizing Undercurrent for reporting the NTSB inquiry. Undercurrent also received emails from people along the lines of: they used the Truth boats many times and they never caught fire when they were on them! (WTAF?)

For the record:
We at Undercurrent appalled that up to 40 guests were regularly accommodated on a fire-prone passenger vessel (fibrerglass-over-plywood) with no chance of escape from a fire because the emergency escape route was inadequate, there was no roving watch as required by U.S.Coastguard, and the operating company had scant regard for emergency procedures. That normalization of deviance had been occurring for more than three decades.

It was a terrible and unnecessary loss of innocent lives and nobody is more angry about it than we are. I personally once rejected a trip on a sister vessel of the Conception after boarding because, with my knowledge and experience of vessels at sea, I felt the prospect was too dangerous. Alas, the public is not always as well informed. It was an accident waiting to happen and we await the outcome of the criminal investigation.

When UC returns to regular publication schedule I hope you will emphasize safety standards in your reviews of both LAB and land-based ops. Pass/Fail - Go/NoGo should be the standard.

Hopefully, your expert review writers will decline to board if safety is anything less than 'pass'.

 

[Diving Dubai]

In both aviation and maritime people commonly say ‘Regulations are written in blood.”

The sinking of the Titanic created SOLAS. Most FAA and military aviation rules can be traced back to a specific accident. Like when American Airlines decided to come up with their own way of replacing engines, which ended with a smoking hole that killed 271 people.

That is unfortunately how things work. People will do things in ways you never expect unless you tell them that ‘you must do it like this, and we’ll take away you right to earn a livelihood or even your freedom if you don’t’.

I've actually written some of these "rules" It's not that easy.

Simply put, you have to balance the wording being so precise it makes the rule unworkable vs the wording to be so imprecise that it's full of loop holes

Once you draft, then you play devil's advocate running examples and the like, trying to make it workable.

Simple example. In UK/EU there is the working at height law. Basically above 4' off the ground you need some fall protection.

Except, the first draft was so litterial that on a normal staircase, every step above 4' would need a handrail, meaning the staircase would be unusable. Or on a theatre stage, you'd need a safety rail between the front of the stage and the orchestra pit - clearly no good for performances

So then you get a whole huge list of exceptions that are dependant on a particular circumstance.

It's way easier to implement new rules on new equipment - but then there is the complexity of applying the new rules to existing equipment

And yes in aerospace, we certainly did use the formula of the cost of implementation across the worldwide fleet vs cost of losing one or two aircraft and its passengers.

 

[Rooster59]

I'm sure at some time before the night of the fire, there was a conversation that included the owner of the boat and the captain regarding a night watch. As a fly on the wall I would like to have heard that one.

 

[drrich2]

Hopefully, your expert review writers will decline to board if safety is anything less than 'pass'.

Depending on how implemented, that might eliminate a lot of reviews paying customers want. While most of us would prefer there be 2 separate means of egress (preferably stair wells) out of the bunk/stateroom area to an open deck area, that's not always the reality and lack thereof doesn't stop me from booking live-aboards. There's also the issue most live-aboards don't operate in U.S. waters.

Most people reach live-aboard boats via airfare (sometimes quite expensive and lengthy); I don't anticipate anyone traveling from the U.S. to Raja Ampat or the Maldives, looking around the boat, and on the basis of not seeing 2 means of egress and no roving watch, refusing to board.

It might indeed be worthwhile for some reviews to site safety info. as it'll be of interest to some. Hopefully not in a vilifying way - calling them 'death traps' or some such.

too harsh because you don’t want to pay extra money beyond your already elitist sport?
oh nooo.... how sad.

No, I don't want to pay extra money. Total trip costs to enjoy scuba are a serious chunk of the budget for many people. You raise an interesting issue, though. Hypothetically, if the current live-aboard boats remained in operation with their current practices and prices, and new boats were put out, same companies and itineraries, but with more optimized standards (e.g.: 2 stairways out of bunk/stateroom area to open deck area, militantly enforced roving watch 24/7), but those new boats charged a premium, how much more would it have to cost before you'd stick with the old way? Even knowing what you know in the wake of the Conception disaster?

 

[Cert1967]

Most people reach live-aboard boats via airfare (sometimes quite expensive and lengthy); I don't anticipate anyone traveling from the U.S. to Raja Ampat or the Maldives, looking around the boat, and on the basis of not seeing 2 means of egress and no roving watch, refusing to board.

Exactly why you might find the UC review - with pass/fail for safety valuable.

Read the report, know before you go - make your own decision.

 

[drrich2]

The info. might be valuable; labeling it 'pass/fail' not so much. That's a value judgment (probably a politically correct one) I'd rather leave to the individual customer, as there's not universal agreement on it. A live-aboard that was '5 Star' a couple years ago suddenly becomes a 'Fail?' No.

Just lay out the facts. In the event of an emergency, what are the means of egress from bunk/stateroom areas? Was a constant roving watch observed to be present (particularly at night)? If there was a secondary means of exit (e.g.: like an overhead hatch), how accessible was it, did it look like chunky people could get through it, and quite a few people quickly...or not?

Objective reviews with info. divers want are great; 'name and shame' tactics not so much.

Richard.

 

[KevinNM]

Depending on how implemented, that might eliminate a lot of reviews paying customers want. While most of us would prefer there be 2 separate means of egress (preferably stair wells) out of the bunk/stateroom area to an open deck area, that's not always the reality and lack thereof doesn't stop me from booking live-aboards. There's also the issue most live-aboards don't operate in U.S. waters.

Most people reach live-aboard boats via airfare (sometimes quite expensive and lengthy); I don't anticipate anyone traveling from the U.S. to Raja Ampat or the Maldives, looking around the boat, and on the basis of not seeing 2 means of egress and no roving watch, refusing to board.

It might indeed be worthwhile for some reviews to site safety info. as it'll be of interest to some. Hopefully not in a vilifying way - calling them 'death traps' or some such.



No, I don't want to pay extra money. Total trip costs to enjoy scuba are a serious chunk of the budget for many people. You raise an interesting issue, though. Hypothetically, if the current live-aboard boats remained in operation with their current practices and prices, and new boats were put out, same companies and itineraries, but with more optimized standards (e.g.: 2 stairways out of bunk/stateroom area to open deck area, militantly enforced roving watch 24/7), but those new boats charged a premium, how much more would it have to cost before you'd stick with the old way? Even knowing what you know in the wake of the Conception disaster?

The US airline industry is really, really safe. Absurdly safe. It is very, very expensive to do that, but the costs are spread over thousands of aircraft and hundred of millions of passenger fares. If there were only 10 aircraft and they only had thousands of passenger fares it would simply not be practical to maintain the same level of safety and remain in business. Nobody could afford to replace an engine when it takes ~3 years of every paying passenger's fare to pay for it.

So yeah, there is a possible problem here. Not sure how to deal with it.

"I would rather it be cheap than safe" is certainly an option for the customers.

 

[John Bantin]

For more than 20 years I had the privilege of being employed by Diver Magazine in the UK with an owner who wanted me to tell the unvarnished truth. Because none of the hundreds of trips I did were funded by me, I was not committed to write good things about either the equipment I used or the destinations I got to. Twice I rejected trips on vessels after boarding, where I felt the layout was too dangerous and in both cases, through the galley area was the only route out of the sleeping area for a large number of people below decks. (Galleys are a common source of fire.) One vessel was Egyptian and called Diver Show. I think you can guess the other. Nowadays, mainstream magazines subscribe to the philosophy "If you can't write about something positive, write nothing at all."

 

[chillyinCanada]

When UC returns to regular publication schedule I hope you will emphasize safety standards in your reviews of both LAB and land-based ops. Pass/Fail - Go/NoGo should be the standard.

Hopefully, your expert review writers will decline to board if safety is anything less than 'pass'.

Divers will still board, roll the dice and do their best to enjoy the trip to the fullest nonetheless. Then when they return safely, they'll blast the problems thither and yon on the internet.