HalcyonDaze
Contributor
Ken has been factual and evenhanded in his presentation of this - fitting with his reputation on this board and in the California dive community. "Harsh but fair" in my book is exactly what I expect (and as a citizen, demand) from a legal and regulatory process. My one experience sitting on a jury I listened to the evidence, took notes, filtered out the circus theatrics from the lawyers (mostly the defense; maybe I should have made it clear in voir dire that I don't like being lied to), and pushed for a thorough review of the exhibits during deliberations. While I wanted to lock the guy up and throw away the key, in my role I had to consider the law and the evidence and could only convict him on one of the three charges. I wasn't happy that the max penalty for that conviction was 5 years in prison and a $250k fine and as I recall he got less, but that decision was up to a federal judge and the legal statutes.
For the record, I've never been out on one a Truth Aquatics boat and don't know any of the parties involved. Several of my friends knew folks who died on the Conception, and I definitely have concerns about how widespread issues like overloaded electrical outlets/wiring, flammable construction, inadequate fire alarms, emergency egress, and lack of a night watch are in the overall LOB world. I was very disturbed when the RSA 1 had a near-similar fire less than two months later, when everyone in the industry should have been on their toes and the only saving factor (for all but one of the passengers) might have been that it happened earlier in the evening and not at 3 am. As part of that discussion I remember someone bringing up issues on the Socorro Aggressor that would have made me take a hard nope.
TA had a reputation for being a safe operation in no small part because the USCG looked over their boats as required by law and signed off on them year after year. Now we know those regs were inadequate and did not identify multiple safety issues that killed 34 people when things went bad. TA does ultimately bear responsibility and I have little doubt there will be legal action forthcoming; however, to my understanding the only instance where they actually violated existing law was the lack of a roving patrol as mandated in the COI. As presented here however, the USCG does not check for that and hasn't issued a citation for it in almost three decades; it appears to be a common violation in the LOB industry. That does not excuse it in any way, but does identify it as a widespread problem not limited to TA. Some of us - myself included - initially thought this requirement was filled because of the early report that a crewman had checked the salon and galley around 0230. As we found out, that crewman then went upstairs and went to sleep. Had there been a crewman awake and walking the decks 20 minutes later some or all of those 34 might still be alive. That was the final safety measure that could have prevented loss of life; after that any discussion about the usefulness of the exit hatch or firefighting response is most likely a moot point.
I can't really put it any better than Frank has.
