Split from Conception Captain Guilty -- Insurance Changes

[Tracy]

Apparently, the industry is trying to redeem our image. I'm not sure what this initiative is calling for... https://www.dema.org/page/DIVEBOATActResourceCenter

View attachment 809815

It is trying to exempt scuba day boats from the increased insurance costs brought on by liveaboard vessels. Day boat fishing vessels were exempted from the new rules, but all dive boats got lumped together. Day boat charter operators are seeing massive massive insurance increases in the last few years due to the new rules.

 

[Tracy]

My interpretation of what this is calling for is to roll back to a place where divers burn to death and no owner is held accountable. Every time I see this ad, I get a little nauseated - DEMA says cheap trips are more important than those divers' lives.

I mean, as long as you don't read or understand any of what they are presenting, I guess you could come to that conclusion.
It is literally trying to get day boats and liveaboards into separate categories.
It was already done with fishing charters as they have a much more extensive lobby working for them.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

My interpretation of what this is calling for is to roll back to a place where divers burn to death and no owner is held accountable. Every time I see this ad, I get a little nauseated - DEMA says cheap trips are more important than those divers' lives.

BUT, we as a Walmart shopper society want nothing more than the shell of any product, regardless of price. We see it in certifications, we see it in stores. Those of us who fight against it are the few, the many demand their baubles be delivered at cost.

Maybe I'm a troglodyte, but there comes a point where we have to stop wandering the crowded aisles and say enough is enough.

I do agree with this part however from the link:

• Remove “day-boats” from the types of vessels subject to heightened liability standards – reverting them back to the same standards as all other vessel operators, e.g., sport fishing, cruise lines, tow boats, etc.

For Washington state and Monterey (day dive boats/charters I've been on), I don't see the need for additional regulation. Is there a safety problem that I'm not aware? (@Wookie?).

For overnight/multiday dive trips, yes, increased safety regulations are a must.

I do wish that the cause of the fire was determined.

 

[VikingDives]

I mean, as long as you don't read or understand any of what they are presenting, I guess you could come to that conclusion.
It is literally trying to get day boats and liveaboards into separate categories.
It was already done with fishing charters as they have a much more extensive lobby working for them.

I'll admit that I didn't read it recently, but nevertheless, I didn't read it that way,, nor is it being presented that way. I don't want you to go out of business, but that isn't the way I interpreted the legislation as I read it, nor is it how the marketing is presented.

 

[VikingDives]

I do agree with this part however from the link:

• Remove “day-boats” from the types of vessels subject to heightened liability standards – reverting them back to the same standards as all other vessel operators, e.g., sport fishing, cruise lines, tow boats, etc.

For Washington state and Monterey (day dive boats/charters I've been on), I don't see the need for additional regulation. Is there a safety problem that I'm not aware? (@Wookie?).

For overnight/multiday dive trips, yes, increased safety regulations are a must.

I do wish that the cause of the fire was determined.

I'm going to go back and re-read the proposed legislation.

I am willing to admit I didn't do a deep dive into it because of my disgust with the DEMA marketing, but there's no reason an operation like @Tracy's should be painted with the broad brush of federal legislation that is meant to cover the bovine excrement theatrics that we are discussing here.

 

[Tracy]

Link that explains this somewhere?

The last line of this article sums up the goal of the DBA.

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.dema.org/resource/resmgr/documents/DIVEBOATAct.pdf

 

[Wookie]

I think it might be more to do with day boats that are getting hammered by the new regulations born out the the Conception fire. I haven't looked at the regs myself, but talking to my former boss that owns (owned?) a dive boat in Lahaina, day boats now require 2 licensed people on board at all time. No more Master stays on board and dive masters/guides get in the water. You have to have a Master AND some other licensed person boat sit. On a 12 pax boat, that is one less paying passenger and one more crew that has to be paid, that is the entirety of a lot of boats profit margin. That will probably lead to a lot more operators running uninspected boats as six pax only.

Again, I haven't looked at the regs, but that is how I understood the changes.

A crew member does not take up a passenger spot. If the boat is a 12-pack, it is 12 +2 crew

 

[VikingDives]

The last line of this article sums up the goal of the DBA.

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.dema.org/resource/resmgr/documents/DIVEBOATAct.pdf

Hey @Tracy, I'm not knocking what you're saying, but the marketing that DEMA is doing isn't really knocking me over. I didn't ever get much beyond this: https://www.dema.org/news/639976/UR...resentatives-to-Support-The-DIVE-BOAT-Act.htm but being the last line in a one pager isn't exactly overwhelming... Do you have a link to the actual and proposed legislation?

 

[Tracy]

Hey @Tracy, I'm not knocking what you're saying, but the marketing that DEMA is doing isn't really knocking me over. I didn't ever get much beyond this: https://www.dema.org/news/639976/UR...resentatives-to-Support-The-DIVE-BOAT-Act.htm but being the last line in a one pager isn't exactly overwhelming... Do you have a link to the actual and proposed legislation?

I am looking for it now. I found it a few months ago. It is section 11503 of HR7776. But that just tells that they were changing the liability of the vessel owner. Somewhere I had found a copy of the 2023 SPVA where it detailed which boats it applied to.
It exempted cruise ships and day boat fishing charters, but scuba boats were all considered the same.
I understand the general annoyance with anything DEMA, but the DBA is actually trying to help.
My insurance has doubled in price twice in 3 years. I now spend more on insurance than fuel.

Here is an article describing what the plan of act was and delves a bit into the outfall.

 

[VikingDives]

I am looking for it now. I found it a few months ago. It is section 11503 of HR7776. But that just tells that they were changing the liability of the vessel owner. Somewhere I had found a copy of the 2023 SPVA where it detailed which boats it applied to.
It exempted cruise ships and day boat fishing charters, but scuba boats were all considered the same.

Thanks. I'm not knocking you, or what you do... I don't like how DEMA has present this, but I'm open to reading and supporting operations like yours. If you're being painted into a corner that isn't something I'd support. At the same time, I don't support DEMA trying to get people who need a night watch and who don't bother to provide one an insurance break.