Scuba Shack's Boat Get Wet Sinks in Key Largo

[VooDooGasMan]

This is how the family has been doing.

Missing Aimee

 

[VooDooGasMan]

Nathaniel is who dove down and brought to the surface.

 

[deepstops]

If I understand the timelines, this boat was certified to carry 12 or 14 passengers two years ago, failed its USCG inspection and rather than make hull repairs, they instead decided to run it as an uncertified six-pack. That borders on negligent homicide IMO.

 

[DebbyDiver]

I don't know how much stock I would place in the exact wording of that article. It was published the day after the incident (I read it then), has a generic photo of a CG vessel, and is rather short. It has the feel of an "initial" article.

I spent many years working for the major daily newspaper in SoFla, and my former spouse retired after 30 years with the ABC news affiliate in SoFla, and all I can say is that you can NEVER put ANY stock in a news article or story.

 

[spoolin01]

When the boat started flooding the Captain asked the passengers to move forward in the cabin in order to balance out the weight. That's why Aimee and Amit were in the cabin.

The M/V "Get Wet" was fitted with a hatch on a hinge on the after deck. When the transom flooded, the hatch swung up, pinning the door to the cabin shut, and trapping Aimee and Amit inside.

How the others escaped, I don't know.

The "Get Wet" had no hull insurance. The liability insurance of Key Largo Scuba Shack is unknown. Jacobs Aquatic Center probably has liability, but they will rely upon the PADI release that Aimee and Amit likely signed before beginning their instruction. In my opinion the release can be defeated.

Where does this information come from? As japan-diver points out, there doesn't appear to have been any kind of door that would match your description. Even if there had been, for water to float a hatch that might be that far forward, at the helm, the water level would have to be so high that I doubt the boat would still be floating or upright.

It's believable the captain would ask passengers to move forward in response to the sinking stern, though all the way forward, in front of the windscreen, standing on the bow deck would be the better place, but even had they been up by the helm, the sides under the hard canopy are open enough that they should have been able to get clear. I would hope the captain of a sinking boat would know the danger of asking someone to crowd themselves down into that little "cuddy" area forward of the helm.

It's perplexing that the two victims would be in a position to be trapped - in warm water, with boats nearby, I'd just get clear as soon as water started pouring in through the transom door. That would happen early, before the boat Has it been established whether the two victims had swimming skills?

 

[mike_s]

If I understand the timelines, this boat was certified to carry 12 or 14 passengers two years ago, failed its USCG inspection and rather than make hull repairs, they instead decided to run it as an uncertified six-pack. That borders on negligent homicide IMO.

the 2010 USCG inspection also said that repairs were needed before putting boat back in water.

To me, this means for any commercial purpose. (in MY definition). Not sure how it would apply though by their definition.



My guess is that this might have been why the boat wasn't insured (from previous reports it wasn't insured). Any good marine underwriter is going to check USCG inspection reports and they couldn't get coverage on it.

 

[conchrandy]

Roger told me (for those in the biz) that they ere encouraged to make the repairs but they didn't. So instant 6 pack.

 

[Blue Sparkle]

the 2010 USCG inspection also said that repairs were needed before putting boat back in water.

To me, this means for any commercial purpose. (in MY definition). Not sure how it would apply though by their definition.



My guess is that this might have been why the boat wasn't insured (from previous reports it wasn't insured). Any good marine underwriter is going to check USCG inspection reports and they couldn't get coverage on it.

I was just wondering where you found the info on the 2010 Coast Guard inspection. (This is not a case of the confusion we went over in posts 88, 94, and 95, is it? Where we determined that this "Get Wet" is an uninspected vessel and that there is *another* "Get Wet" in the Keys that IS an inspected vessel.)

I'm not writing this to contest your info; I would just like to see the 2010 CG inspection report, and to feel confident that the two vessels are not (continuing to be) mixed up.

Thanks,
Blue Sparkle

 

[jenlaur]

We dove with Scuba Shack in June. We had to be transported to another boat because their's was having some sort of mechanical problem. There were only 4 of us. So I suppose we would have been on that boat as well. Scary.....

 

[Jax]

Question:

Given that the USCG is investigating, does that mean we'll get to see the investigation results?