Conception Indictments

[boulderjohn]

but also sad for what has been a very good operation over the years.

Or would it be more accurate to describe it as "a very lucky operation over the years"?

 

[johndiver999]

the definition of roving watch will likely be the cornerstone of both the prosecution and the defense.

If the entire crew was in their bunks AND this is what they always did, I find it hard to believe that anyone other than maybe Rudy G. could argue that they were doing what was required.

 

[Wookie]

The difference is the Grove deliberately hid and blocked exits, conception was in compliance with the regulations as far as structurally required. New regulations are needed but application to boats makes things that sound simple actually can be quite complicated.

Emotions aside this is not a slam dunk prosecution, the documentation shows compliance.

No compliance for the specific charges. He didn’t keep a rover up, he didn’t perform drills, and he didn’t provide training. Whether the boat was in compliance has no bearing, -although- the CG always checked my drill log during annual safety inspection and always had us run a fire drill and get underway for a man overboard drill. Oscar usually lost his pants.

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

the CG always checked my drill log during annual safety inspection and always had us run a fire drill and get underway for a man overboard drill.

Same here - every boat had to conduct the drills, every log checked.

 

[Shasta_man]

Being inspected every year and apparently passing seems to contradict being charged with not running drills? I could imagine being able to passably complete a drill during the inspection but the info in the thread says logbook had to exist to pass the inspection.

So they must have falsified the logbook and the charges are based on the crew saying they never did drills or were specifically trained?

The more we hear the worse it gets because it's says some basic safety issues that anyone could recognize would be important on a boat were not done. I'm sure that running a boat is lots of work but the yearly inspection would be a reminder to do required things. Complacency. Everything was fine until it wasn't.

To the earlier post about the company running again, we saw people on the board willing to go on the boat either because they thought the crew was safe or even for reasons too common these days which is they didn't care about their safety enough to not go despite being advised of the problems. As Dr Bill said, at least some people felt the boat was well run and the crew watching their safety but as an education to us all, there is more to it than what you see and those things aren't so important until you hit a major problem when all that collapses.

 

[scubadada]

This is a very good point. How could they passed inspection if the drills and training log had not been up to snuff?

 

[Wookie]

Being inspected every year and apparently passing seems to contradict being charged with not running drills? I could imagine being able to passably complete a drill during the inspection but the info in the thread says logbook had to exist to pass the inspection.

So they must have falsified the logbook and the charges are based on the crew saying they never did drills or were specifically trained?

The more we hear the worse it gets because it's says some basic safety issues that anyone could recognize would be important on a boat were not done. I'm sure that running a boat is lots of work but the yearly inspection would be a reminder to do required things. Complacency. Everything was fine until it wasn't.

To the earlier post about the company running again, we saw people on the board willing to go on the boat either because they thought the crew was safe or even for reasons too common these days which is they didn't care about their safety enough to not go despite being advised of the problems. As Dr Bill said, at least some people felt the boat was well run and the crew watching their safety but as an education to us all, there is more to it than what you see and those things aren't so important until you hit a major problem when all that collapses.

Every inspection sector is different and have the nits they like to pick.

In Galveston, they could care less about the drill log (which was the ships log). They wanted to see the maintenance log. They made me install a $30,000 door that key west brought people by to laugh at. Key west wanted to see the drills logged, and looked at the maintenance log as a source of amusement. Sector San Juan (Puerto Rico) gave me the most in depth new to zone inspection I had ever been subject to. They had the book out and went item by item. I think they were bored, or looking to zing Key West. No zingers.

My point is that the inspectors may never have reviewed the log for crew training or for drills. And of course, the log went with the ship.

 

[Rooster59]

My point is that the inspectors may never have reviewed the log for crew training or for drills. And of course, the log went with the ship.

Whoever signed off on the inspections ...

 

[drrich2]

To the earlier post about the company running again, we saw people on the board willing to go on the boat either because they thought the crew was safe or even for reasons too common these days which is they didn't care about their safety enough to not go despite being advised of the problems.

It's a tangent, but one worth dealing with briefly. I don't think it's people not caring about their safety. It's one of perceived risk. Some of us didn't know a roving watch was required. We know 'crap happens,' and could see there was one practical exit from below decks (which remains a reality on a number of other liveaboards), and we chose to do live-aboard trips knowing all that...and some of us didn't think there was (or know there was supposed to be) a constant roving watch all night just in case a fire broke out or similar disaster. We accepted the risk.

So the question becomes...when there's no roving watch, there's a risk, but how big is it? How does it compare to the risk of an acute medical event underwater, immersion pulmonary edema, hostile sea life, a major down current, or a range of other things that are highly unlikely on a given dive but do happen? It's hard to be objective about that in the wake of the Conception disaster with 34 deaths, but it's important. I imagine it's hard to be objective about the low risk of shark attack if you knew someone who got killed by a great white.

My point is, I don't equate willingness to go on a trip with an operation that didn't have a roving watch (but very likely does now!) amounts to reckless disregard for one's safety. We all make judgment calls about risk...usually without knowing the specific % change of serious injury or death, and often inconstantly (taking a bigger risk and passing on a smaller one).

 

[Wookie]

Whoever signed off on the inspections ...

In my opinion, the inspection isn’t meant to be a check for 100% compliance, it’s a spot check to ensure the operator, officers, and crew know what they are doing. I’ve seen things slide through other inspections that I would never get away with, only to be busted in a following year when a new or different (or trainee) inspector comes along. If drill compliance was not a priority in that sector, it wouldn’t have been checked. I’d love to hear from other boats running similar trips and how they were inspected.

And some inspectors are sleazy.