And so it begins. Panic in the California dive boat industry

Please register or login

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

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

But this was already required by Coast Guard regulations.
Not exactly. If you read through the CFRs that cover watches and such, there are very few specifics other than to say it must occur and some form of "as the captain master of the vessel sees fit" is in there. So "Use your best judgement but when things go south, we'll tell you you
are wrong and should have done it differently. And don't blame us - USCG - for not finding fault when it could have made a difference."

For the Conception specifically, the roving watchman was on their COI. It was also not well-defined but simply says: "A MEMBER OF THE VESSEL'S CREW SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE MASTER AS A ROVING PATROL AT ALL TIMES, WHETHER OR NOT THE VESSEL IS UNDERWAY, WHEN THE PASSENGER'S BUNKS ARE OCCUPIED." So what's roving? Continuously? Once every five minutes? Once an hour? On every deck simultaneously? Lots of gray area here IMHO. Not as cut-and-dried as some would think. (COI is attached for those interested.)
 

Attachments

  • Conception COI.pdf
    38.5 KB · Views: 135
2300w.
Most 1.5mm^2 for 10A, some more high power outlets 2,5mm^2 for 16A.
230-240V.
Thanks. I couldn't believe 32 amps on 14 gauge.
 
Not exactly. If you read through the CFRs that cover watches and such, there are very few specifics other than to say it must occur and some form of "as the captain master of the vessel sees fit" is in there. So "Use your best judgement but when things go south, we'll tell you you
are wrong and should have done it differently. And don't blame us - USCG - for not finding fault when it could have made a difference."

For the Conception specifically, the roving watchman was on their COI. It was also not well-defined but simply says: "A MEMBER OF THE VESSEL'S CREW SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE MASTER AS A ROVING PATROL AT ALL TIMES, WHETHER OR NOT THE VESSEL IS UNDERWAY, WHEN THE PASSENGER'S BUNKS ARE OCCUPIED." So what's roving? Continuously? Once every five minutes? Once an hour? On every deck simultaneously? Lots of gray area here IMHO. Not as cut-and-dried as some would think. (COI is attached for those interested.)
It's very cut and dry, roving at all times.
 
And yet this inspector approved the vessel for further service. Why has he not been sued yet? He admitted he saw problems and did nothing to stop it.

He is the witch, burn him!
-Witch hunt is now over.

If it was compliant,,,, are his hands tied. the comment alone sounds akin to an environmentalist saying on the job as an auto emissions tester. that it is compliant but is an environmental desaster. compliant to me is a statement backed with standards. the comment death trap is an opinion by some one that perhaps does not believe in the standards being accurate or in this case doesnt like boats. perhaps another comparison is this regarding taxation would be,,,,, you are compliant per IRS but you dont pay your fair share.
 
And so it begins. Panic in the California dive boat industry

Your headline is misleading, it's not panic to put in place prudent procedures.

I believe these procedures are being put in place based on speculation.

I believe you're under-reacting and not appreciating the enormity of this event.

I just hope and pray those that “fixed” air travel have retired and will not be employed here
 
Not exactly. If you read through the CFRs that cover watches and such, there are very few specifics other than to say it must occur and some form of "as the captain master of the vessel sees fit" is in there. So "Use your best judgement but when things go south, we'll tell you you
are wrong and should have done it differently. And don't blame us - USCG - for not finding fault when it could have made a difference."

For the Conception specifically, the roving watchman was on their COI. It was also not well-defined but simply says: "A MEMBER OF THE VESSEL'S CREW SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE MASTER AS A ROVING PATROL AT ALL TIMES, WHETHER OR NOT THE VESSEL IS UNDERWAY, WHEN THE PASSENGER'S BUNKS ARE OCCUPIED." So what's roving? Continuously? Once every five minutes? Once an hour? On every deck simultaneously? Lots of gray area here IMHO. Not as cut-and-dried as some would think. (COI is attached for those interested.)


Absolitely there is a large gray area. It says a roving watch will be assigned at all times not that the watch will be roving at all times.. Its only my interpretation but a ships roving patrol watch ( not space specific) is an area assignment to include the entire ship as opposed to being alarm room watch. A roving watch would be responsible for monitoring each accessable space physically and not remotely. That could be each hour for spaces occupied and every 2 hours where equipment is in operation and every 3 hours for unoccupied spaces and draft readings every 6 hours when changes are not expected or if expected every 30 minutes. I would also expect to have a log book of some sorts to document the checkpoint results and times.
 
It's very cut and dry, roving at all times.
Not even close to "cut and dry".
Do you have to rove every deck at every second?
How much of each deck do you need to cover?
How miuch time can you spend on each deck?
Does each deck need its own dedicated rover if you can see/rove all the decks at once?
Lawyers are going to have a field day with this phrase.
 
Not even close to "cut and dry".
Do you have to rove every deck at every second?
How much of each deck do you need to cover?
How miuch time can you spend on each deck?
Does each deck need its own dedicated rover if you can see/rove all the decks at once?
Lawyers are going to have a field day with this phrase.
to any mariner it's pretty cut and dry unless being paid to argue it isn't.

your first question defies physics, the second and third is not defined but a lack of exclusions or further definition makes it clear and your forth question is a no or it would have been specified.
 

Back
Top Bottom