Those are pretty damning statements there, averagediver!
In what respect do you feel that the Philippine Siren would fail to meet the standards set by the USCG? What specifically did you witness that leads you to this conclusion?
As to your claim that the USCG standards are "the best in the world," I'm pretty sure that nationals of Australia, the UK, France, Japan, Canada, Holland and other seafaring nations feel the same way about the standards imposed by their own regulatory bodies.
Making black and white statements like those two in your quote without supporting details seems rather over the top.
I'm happy to have a go with that one if you like....
First off, the US is signatory to the rules and regulations of the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, as are all of the other nations you mentioned. It is logical to assume that nations that are subject to IMO regulations are held to a higher standard than nations that are not signatory and let vessels carry passengers willy nilly. Turns out in the case of Canada, at least, their safety rules and regulations don't transfer easily to other jurisdictions. Is this a matter of standards and regulations? I can't answer that, I do know that a Canadian flagged passenger vessel certified by Canada to meet the requirements for international voyages does not meet Panama standards, and Panama will certify any vessel to do anything, practically.
Any vessel flagged from any country trading in the United States must be inspected by the USCG to ensure it meets US standards. If a French flagged freighter wants to pull into the Miami river and load or unload whatever, it must undergo an inspection. That's because no foreign flagged vessel automatically meets US standards. When I was allowed to travel with the Spree on her 2 foreign voyages, one to Colombia and one to Haiti, USCG certification meant that we automatically met the safety standards for Colombia and Haiti, respectively. Being US flagged meant that we automatically surpassed safety requirements for those 2 countries, at least.
Many liveaboard operators choose not to flag their vessels in IMO signatory states. This saves them a tremendous amount of money in fees and inspections. Saving money on fees and inspections would lead one to believe that inspections take place at say more irregular intervals than they might in IMO signatory countries. That doesn't mean that the operator is ignoring important safety issues, it means that there is no one looking over his or her shoulder to ensure that those safety issues are met.
Additionally, US flagged vessels away from the dock for longer than 12 hours must carry a licensed Captain and a Mate who speak English. That means, a crewmember who has passed a course of learning to a measurable standard is in charge of the vessel 24 hours a day. Additionally, one of the deckhands must be designated in writing to be the senior deckhand, meaning that in the event of a complete failure of the captain and mate, a third crewmember can safely navigate the vessel back to land and dock the boat. Other countries captains usually come from the fishing industry which may make for great boat handlers, but doesn't say much for passenger vessel safety.
Logically, this means that USCG standards are the best in the world. YMMV.
