Dangerous Crossing

[cenote69]

MMM & Dave and whom ever else may care,

This is indeed the Living Underwater that you see here after Wilma View attachment 114835she was restored by her owner Max and continued to serve as a dive boat in Cozumel until she sank again late this past summer never to return to the water again after she was brought up from the bottom of caleta harbor. She now sits out in the jungle across from caleta rotting. This boat seen here is the boat that sank yesterday trying to make the crossing with 9 people aboard 18 tanks and all of their dive gear, fruit and ice water (room temp for Kevin) View attachment 114836This boat was a glass bottom boat at one point in time and the viewing hole was converted into a fish box a few years ago. This new Living Underwater use to be called the Nora Gabriela. View attachment 114837The Nora was not able to get permits to take divers into the park diving, this is why it was always seen taking divers north or fishing outside the park when Opal was alive (rest in peace dear friend). The Nora was taken from the boys at the dive shop along with the name of the shop after Opal's passing with threats of lawsuits by Mau.
Now...... Mau still has a problem his new shop is called Scuba Mau and his boat (without a working engine) is called the Nora Gabriela which is not aloud in the park, so he strikes up a deal with Max for the permits for the Living Underwater and gets some financial help from some friends ( a few of them were on the boat when it sank yesterday ) and they proceed to give the Nora a face lift, a brand new shinny 4 stroke yamaha and a new name with permits to take divers into the park.

So when Darol said KARMA! I think he hit it spot on but thats just my interpretation.


I am thankful no one was hurt aside from a little sunburn and pruning but why are they not telling their story of what happened?

just thought it needed to be re-posted.

 

[cenote69]

The Nora Gabriela and Mau's Living Underwater are the same boat and for anyone else that still has questions about the glass bottom..............Yes.....FACT....it had a glass bottom. The Nora Gabriela was a Retro fitted glass bottom boat.

 

[cvchief]

Ok - I am a bit bad about using quotes here, so apologies -
CVChief...You are spot on. Even now, after all the statements and clarifications regarding the separate identities of these two dive operations, WSOPFAN seems more than hell bent on trying to muddy the waters and tie the two separate dive shops together. Why?

CVChief you also asked about the park permits - I only stated what I have seen and heard in my own personal experience. I am not educated on the legalities of what you can and can not do with these marine park permits. I was only stating what I have personally heard... so apologies for putting it as FACT. ​

I think Mau has enough problems with this whole incident and it looks bad enough for him and Max that he doesn't need more problems. I never met him but people I like say he is a nice guy. I feel for him. He was scrounging to build a business after the split. Gotta be tough.

As to the park permits, it seems the illegal transfer may be true. I mean it is Mexico, so some rule are more like guidelines, but I don't think Mau owned either boat, so perhaps he really isnt in the same trouble as the guy that does own both boats. Both were rentals right? I mean if you look a name changes, take Jeremy and the Jewfish. He named that boat I believe and that had to be a transfer of a permit, right?
R

 

[DandyDon]

Back to the original idea of the thread...

1: I don't mind crossing the channel in a panga if the channel looks calm and the forecast is clear.

2: I would like to think I am in a safe boat and the captain cleared the crossing with the port authority, but how the hell do I know either?

I can understand why some would not attempt the crossing, regardless.

 

[Oldbear]

Michael, a local USCG Aux. safe boating class would not hurt. If nothing else it will make you aware of the boats you go on.The very basic class that is.. and the cost is usually nominal. No matter how boring take the time to note where the lifejackets are on the dive boat. Have your own escape plan in your mind and place your equipment in light of that. I never go out in a boat, no matter what I am doing without taking the time to look at the local marina forecast. I know my comfort zone and try real hard to not exceed that... if I can that is.. ymmv...

MAgnolia3,

Thank you for the great suggestion. Currently while I am in Kuwait I have joined a local BSAC diving club and am going their their Dive Leader's training. They also have a boat operator's couse I will take when it is scheduled. But I forgot all about our USCG Aux courses back home. I will definitely add that to my list of to do when I return home in a few months. I know since I have started the Dive Leader's course and have been reading ScubaBoard, I sure do view what happens on the boat and durning the dives with my Rose Colored Glasses removed.

Great suggestion...thanks. :cool3:

~ME~

 

[TomZ]

FWIW the Safe Boating courses are available on line:

Boating Safety Course with Online Exam - Get Your Boating License or Certification

For our purposes as divers, it's not a bad idea.

 

[annlaur]

[…] i have been aware in the past, that there are only a certain amount of park permits given out and that when a boat is retired or out of commission it is common practice for the permit to pass on to another boat but that name of the permit has to stay the same. i can't even begin to speculate on this one.[…]

I have heard the same thing from at least two different local sources (dive guides) on the island in the past.
Of course that doesn't mean it is truly how it is done. Or even that it is legal. My experience working in Mexico in the past in a field that has nothing to do with diving is that there's the law, and then there's how things actually work. Not necessarily because of corruption, but because it makes things easier for everyone (sometimes there aren't enough public servants to do all the required work or they don't know the law has changed, so they bend the rules).

I am by no means trying to "sugarcoat" anything, just saying it's pointless to play coach quaterback and demand or expect things to be done the way they are in the US or any other country. This is Mexico, they have their own laws and their own way of applying them. Fot those who insist on applying US rules to Mexican affairs, may I suggest reading the following link : Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would also like to point out that, while having the proper paperwork is (or at least should be) a good sign that a boat is deemed secure enough to navigate in the areas and conditions specified on the paperwork, not having the paperwork doesn't mean a boat is not fit to navigate.

Anyway, my understanding is that the limited permit thing that may (or may not) lead to using a retired boat's park permit and renaming the new craft the same as the original boat applies to the restricted numbers of ships allowed in the Marine Park. (So far, I haven't be able to find any official info on the internet regarding how many boats have those permits in Cozumel and what the law says about buying a new boat).

However, whether or not the Scuba Mau boat that sunk had a park permit or not is irrelevant : they were crossing to Playa that day, not going to the Marine Park. So the accurate legal question would be whether or not the boat was allowed to cross the channel.
For those who would like to know more about the Navigation laws of Mexico, here is a link I found (don't know if it's the current law).
Articles 38 and 40 explain the basic requirements (paperwork) for registering a boat in Mexico.
Articles 55 thru 57 are about boat modifications, changes of ownership, etc.

Artículo 55- Cuando previa aprobación de la Secretaría, se hagan modificaciones
significativas a las embarcaciones o artefactos navales, los certificados de matrícula,
seguridad, cubierta y máquinas serán reemplazados; el libro y los cálculos de
estabilidad serán modificados; y unos y otros serán sometidos a la aprobación de la
Capitanía de Puerto.

Artículo 56- En tanto el Capitán de Puerto otorga la aprobación a que se refiere el
artículo anterior, deberá extender un pasavante en la forma que establece el presente
capítulo del Reglamento.

Artículo 57- Cuando una embarcación o artefacto naval cambie de propietario, el
vendedor estará obligado a dar aviso de ello a la Capitanía de Puerto de su matrícula,
dentro de los veinte días hábiles siguientes al de la operación. El nuevo propietario
deberá comprobar su capacidad legal para poseer embarcaciones nacionales y
presentar la solicitud de modificación de la matrícula con los datos y documentos
relativos a que se refiere este capítulo. La solicitud deberá contener los requisitos
señalados en los artículos 38 fracción I, y 40 I y VI, de este reglamento.

Sorry, can't do a proper translation as I am not fluent in legal Spanish and there are several technical terms that I am not familiar with.
My understanding is that any significant change to crafts must be approved by the Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes and then submitted to the approval of the Capitania de Puerto.
And that when the boat changes ownership, the seller has to inform the Capitania de Puerto within 20 days of the transaction.
The new owner will have to verify his legal aptitude to possess national crafts and to present a request of modification of the matriculation.

PS : if a reporter from Por Esto really is reading Scubaboard, please ask your bosses to upload Antonio Rea's local police column on the website. I love this guy's witty way of writing.

 

[Jackie]

While some posters don't mind inciting the emnity of others and taking sides, I usually don't feel there is adequate motivation for me to do the same.
i am only going to recount my personal experience. And as we all know YMMV. Given how many people seem to have opinions who have never even met Mau I feel qualified to relate our experience.
When we were in Cozumel we not only dived with the original Scuba Mau, but Mau certified my partner. For those we who do not know why Mau and Opal are linked by some on this thread, they were married and had a business together. The law would call that linked at that point in time while of course not at the time lf this occurence. We made our reservation with Opal and dived with Mau.
While there is no doubt that Mau, like every other op on the islands has his fans, divers like diving with their friends, etc. My experience, based on almost ten years of diving and as many visits to Cozumel was not one I would or did repeat. Part of this relates to attitude, part to judgement and part to observation as an old lady with offspring in their 20's.

I can understand and relate to some of the negative comments made as they relate to my own experiences.

Lastly, while it seems according to many that anything may go in Mexico, that bad things and accidents happen for no foreseeable or avoidable reason, HUH? This gives a lot of good, safe ops a black eye. There are unsafe ops even in the US. Mexico has enough trouble with its perception in the US without cheerleaders implying that people die or are in life threatening situations because Mexico is lawless.

 

[WSOPFAN]

At the very least Mau should have made sure nobody was operating under his business name after he left. If former friends or employees of his were working under his business name and gave him a bad rep at the time that is his darn fault for not taking legal action to make them operate sooner under a new name period.

As for this accident, once again his business practices have come into question again. There are questions of the paperwork, the boat, proper procedures. It is extremely obvious to me and others safety took a back seat to money and bravado in this accident. There was also a response by one diver on board and the issue of the glass bottom was not discussed at all. I would presume they had read some of what was posted here and knew that was an important issue and chose to avoid discussing it at all for who knows what reason. I asked before and I will ask again whenever any of you are done healing......Were you told prior to the trip you would be doing so in a glass bottom boat? I think that is very relevant. Now there is the issue of what is the truth or not in those news articles. Let me tell you what we know for fact.

FACT: Positive proof of legal paperwork was NOT produced for the boat as most shops could probably do immediately. Therefore any discussion of operation of this vessel with improper papers is not out of the question IMO.

Fact: Most professionals there and elsewhere agree a crossing like that should never be attempted in a glass bottom boat period. The fact that the owner/operator, and captain did so is very likely negligence IMO.

Fact: The boat did not contact the Port Captain before attempting to cross. There is a question of if this is a requirement, however from a safety standpoint, once again I believe they all are negligent IMO.

I am not personally attacking this op or the island or anyone else and I am really sick of people accusing me or others of doing so. As I said before I am tired of posters standing behind any business who so obviously has very questionable business practices and who IMO endangers people's lives.

 

[cvchief]

You are making assumptions.

At the very least Mau should have made sure nobody was operating under his business name after he left. If former friends or employees of his were woking under his business name and gave him a bad rep at the time that is his darn fault for not taking legal action to make them operate sooner under a new name period.

How do you know he did not do that? I understand there was a divorace in progress. You are assigning blame on the assumption of what he did or did not do.

As for this accident, once again his business practices have come into question again. There are questions of the paperwork, the boat, proper procedures. It is extremely obvious to me and others safety took a back seat to money and bravado in this accident. There was also a response by one diver on board and the issue of the glass bottom was not discussed at all. I would presume they had read some of what was posted here and knew that was an important issue and chose to avoid discussing it at all for who knows what reason. I asked before and I will ask again whenever any of you are done healing......Were you told prior to the trip you would be doing so in a glass bottom boat? I think that is very relevant. Now there is the issue of what is the truth or not in those news articles. Let me tell you what we know for fact.

FACT: Positive proof of legal paperwork was NOT produced for the boat as most shops could probably do immediately. Therefore any discussion of operation of this vessel with improper papers is not out of the question IMO.

Who produces said paperwork? The boat owner? Who is the boat owner? Many ops use rental boats. When you rent a car do you insist that the agency produce a title and such? You assume Mau was part of the improper papers issue. Perhaps he was, but it isn't FACT as of yet, I don't believe.

Fact: Most professionals there and elsewhere agree a crossing like that should never be attempted in a glass bottom boat period. The fact that the owner/operator, and captain did so is very likely negligence IMO.

Many boats are modified. Who did the modification? How was it done? I bet there are boats with glass windows in the bottom that could have the window properly removed and the hull repaired in such a manner as to make it just as seaworth as a boat that never had a glass window. It would appear that perhaps covering of the glass window was not done well enough, but it is hardly fact. Again, the boat, I believe didn't belong to Mau, so who did the repair? It certainly could have been Mau. Or perhaps someone was paid to make the repair and told him it was good. I don't know.

Fact: The boat did not contact the Port Captain before attempting to cross. There is a question of if this is a requirement, however from a safety standpoint, once again I believe they all are negligent IMO.

You said it is a FACT that he didnt notify anyone. Really what you should be saying is OPINION: You think he should notify the port captain. I don't disagree with that, but it is more opinion and belief than fact.

I am not personally attacking this op or the island or anyone else and I am really sick of people accusing me or others of doing so. As I said before I am tired of posters standing behind any business who so obviously has very questionable business practices and who IMO endangers people's lives.

I am not standing behind their business, I am only standing behind a fair assessment. Consider your last statement: a business that "obviously" has "questionable business practices" and "in your opinion" "endangers" people.
I don't know that many would disagree with you if you said, "There are many questions surrounding this business, what happened and why that since these people's lives were placed in danger." There are questions, but you appear to prejudge the answers or at least present your ideas in a way that makes you seem less than an impartial observer giving opinion.