Great policy, but one wonders if they are going to have enough personnel to do two inspections for these high risk vessels, when they barely had enough to do one.
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
Same as the live aboard captain that contacted me said.Great policy, but one wonders if they are going to have enough personnel to do two inspections for these high risk vessels, when they barely had enough to do one.
Also, if I owned a live-aboard, I'd consider a video surveillance system for the entire boat.
Great idea, but consider an upload to the cloud in the case of the worst case scenario. Electronics don't do well with fire or water.
Yeah, the price for that would run tens of thousands per month for real time monitoring.Great idea, but consider an upload to the cloud in the case of the worst case scenario. Electronics don't do well with fire or water.
No it wouldn't. It is only for storage. It would be reviewed only in the case of an incident. They would be routinely deleted if the owner wished.Yeah, the price for that would run tens of thousands per month for real time monitoring.
Probably not going to happen.
The law is to capture audio from the bridge. If you are required to do so. There are "Black Boxes" (called a Voyage Data Recorder) that will capture video as well. As long as the video is plumbed into the system that the VDR monitors.They make a black box for ships. Just have to increase the storage as I believe they only capture audio from the bridge.