NTSB CONCEPTION HEARING - THIS TUESDAY @ 10AM

[John Bantin]

Read this: A Template for Liveaboard Safety Precautions: Undercurrent 02/2020

 

[boulderjohn]

Read this: A Template for Liveaboard Safety Precautions: Undercurrent 02/2020

Very interesting. I think installing some of those things, one time costs that could be amortised over many years of diving, would have very little impact on a company's bottom line. All that is really needed is the will to do it.

Some years ago, after a Cozumel diver surfaced apart from the group and was never found, I wrote that dive operations (and perhaps the entire island) should minimally require every diver to carry a Surface Marker Buoy (SMB). Many people responded in the thread that I was out of my mind, because the cost of providing (or renting or selling) an SMB to divers who do not have one would put many operations out of business. You can currently buy such a device, paying full retail cost, from Amazon for $16.20. Buying at wholesale cost, you could outfit a 6-pack boat for the price of a cheap dinner in town, but the people in that thread thought that it was just too much to expect a diver operator to make that much of an expenditure merely for the sake of possibly saving a customer's life.

 

[Gareth J]

Very interesting. I think installing some of those things, once time costs that could be amortised over many years of diving, would have very little impact on a company's bottom line. All that is really needed is the will to do it.

Some years ago, after a Cozumel diver surfaced apart from the group and was never found, I wrote that dive operations (and perhaps the entire island) should minimally require every diver to carry a Surface Marker Buoy (SMB). Many people responded in the thread that I was out of my mind, because the cost of providing (or renting or selling) an SMB to divers who do not have one would put many operations out of business. You can currently buy such a device, paying full retail cost, from Amazon for $16.20. Buying at wholesale cost, you could outfit a 6-pack boat for the price of a cheap dinner in town, but the people in that thread thought that it was just too much to expect a diver operator to make that much of an expenditure merely for the sake of possibly saving a customer's life.

Interesting business view.

I suspect that most UK skippers wouldn't let you enter the water if you weren't carrying an SMB.
Apart from the fact that losing divers is bad publicity, they would want to end up in court for negligence.

I can't remember the last time the boat briefing didn't include the comment that if you ascend off the shot you MUST deploy an SMB.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

Very interesting. I think installing some of those things, once time costs that could be amortized over many years of diving, would have very little impact on a company's bottom line. All that is really needed is the will to do it.

While I personally think many of these recommendations are good and valid, in this particular case, you may be missing a possible salient point about cost. Remember that this all affects more than just dive boats. The operative phrase is "commercial small passenger vessels" also known as "T" vessels as they are under sub-chapter T which means under 100 gross tons and 49 or fewer passengers permitted on overnight trips. The other thing to remember is 1996.

In 1996, the sub-chapter T requirements changed. Vessels built before 1996 (as was the Conception and most of the rest of the current SoCal dive and fishing fleet, and I'd estimate a significant portion of the overall US fleet) were grandfathered in and exempted from the new regs (which included larger escape hatches of 32 inches). Whether or not that was a good idea is not the point although it factors in. Because my understanding of the way some of this works (and @Wookie or others feel free to step in and correct me as I'm not a licensed captain), if you start making certain changes or too many of them, you may now lose that grandfather exemption and have to bring the boat up to current sub-chapter T standards. So the common-sense fixes that have been proposed here, even though they are relatively inexpensive, could trigger a re-assignment of which regs you are under and the seemingly minor $1,000 fix suddenly becomes at $100,000 renovation and beyond the financial means fo some - especially single vessel owner/operators - to comply. So a lot of this my not be as simple or black-and-white as it initially seems.

Also, digest this comment from NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt in a post-hearing media release: "The Conception may have passed all Coast Guard inspections, but that did not make it safe." That does not exactly give me great comfort about the efficacy of USCG regs under which boats are built and operate.

 

[KevinNM]

The change the Vision to their emergency escapes made apparently freaked out the USCG inspectors and it was referred to the national level Marine Safety Center, which normally does things like major modifications to oil tankers. My understanding is that it is not now legally allowed to operate due to those changes. But I don't see how those possibly make the vessel less safe.

 

[boulderjohn]

While I personally think many of these recommendations are good and valid, in this particular case, you may be missing a possible salient point about cost. Remember that this all affects more than just dive boats. The operative phrase is "commercial small passenger vessels" also known as "T" vessels as they are under sub-chapter T which means under 100 gross tons and 49 or fewer passengers permitted on overnight trips. The other thing to remember is 1996.

I don't understand your point. If I am running a single dive boat, what does any of this have to do with my decision to implement inexpensive changes that will make my boat safer for my customers?

 

[Wookie]

The change the Vision to their emergency escapes made apparently freaked out the USCG inspectors and it was referred to the national level Marine Safety Center, which normally does things like major modifications to oil tankers. My understanding is that it is not now legally allowed to operate due to those changes. But I don't see how those possibly make the vessel less safe.

Just spitballing, but they *may* have opened up a downflooding path (with the larger hatch) that wasn’t calculated for in their current stability experiment. MSC *may* be pondering how to go about fixing that be requiring a new inclining experiment, which cost about $50 grand to complete, but you have to have permission to even perform one. The can of worms is large and complex.

The Ultimate Getaway out of Fort Myers ran into exactly this problem just before they threw in the towel. They spent a ton of money on new engines and generators and gutting the boat to get it in top safety condition. And the Coast Guard no sailed them because they had moved too much weight around. Eventually they were no-sailed for enough time that the CG yanked their COI, although the story is a little hazy about whether the COI was pulled or surrendered, it really doesn’t matter, the boat will never obtain a COI again, as it would have to come in under New T and doesn’t meet the structural firefighting requirements for that.

 

[scubadada]

Hi @Ken Kurtis

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. What do you think think the solution to this is?

There have been significant changes to the Vision, I have to assume that they also installed smoke detectors in the salon and probably have an interconnected system. Stairs vs. ladder to the emergency exit aside, sounds like they may meet current standards. Despite this, and for a number of good reasons, they do not appear to be operating.

The real issue is what to do with all of these boats approved by the pre-1996 rules. To be perfectly honest, I view them as unsafe and would not use any of them. I have many choices and can vote with my wallet. If I were still a resident of California, I might think somewhat differently, due to lack of other options.

This is a very difficult issue. I'm hoping that future reviews of liveaboards will include a safety checklist.

Very best and good diving, Craig

 

[Wookie]

I don't understand your point. If I am running a single dive boat, what does any of this have to do with my decision to implement inexpensive changes that will make my boat safer for my customers?

Let’s say you choose to remove 3 bunks and make a ladder going up the side of the berthing that exits on the weather deck. No sweat, right? Ladder is safer, and hatch to the outside is safer. You pay your crew to do the work while laid off from COVID and everyone’s a winner.

1. You go get your supplies from Home Depot to build your ladder and hatch. The Coast Guard asks you to show that the wood is fire retardant to ANSI umptysquat or equivalent. You can’t.

2. They ask you how much weight you removed when removing the bunks, and how much you added with the hatch/ladder. You have no idea. They ask you what the net change in righting moment is. You give them the dumb cow look.

3. They ask you what the strength of your new hatch is, and the weight of seawater it can take before giving way during boarding seas. You sadly hand them your COI as you then realize that you are under a microscope and will never carry a passenger on that boat again.

Any change to an inspected vessel must be accompanied by ships drawings, stamped by a PE and submitted to MSC for review, which takes 2 years or better. The other option is to make the changes you desire and hope for forgiveness. See ultimate getaway story above.

 

[Wookie]

The real issue is what to do with all of these boats approved by the pre-1996 rules. To be perfectly honest, I view them as unsafe and would not use any of them. I have many choices and can vote with my wallet.

Quite honestly, that makes your only liveaboard choice the nautilus Belle Amie. I can’t think of any other purpose built boat since 1996 that is built to IMO standards. There are new boats out there, but none built to that level of rigor.