Conception Indictments

[lexvil]

I'm sorry, but the logic here escapes me. Perhaps it is the syntax.

Yes, I was terribly shocked to see that Truth Aquatics intentionally and routine violated the rule for a roving watch. Why do you think would that make me feel safe and secure getting on another boat? Quite the opposite, especially when I later saw the same things was true for the Red Sea Aggressor, even after they assured the passengers they would have a roving watch. I feel much less safe and much less secure getting on another boat. I fear they will be just as bad as Truth.

My quarrel with you is your belief that an operation that intentionally risks the lives of all the passengers on its boat by ignoring an important safety rule is "a good operation."

I guess my issue is assuming luck is the only thing than kept me from dying on all of the truth boats I’ve been on, getting to SB involves more luck. Have you ever been on one of their boats?

 

[nolatom]

I kind of get both points of view. And yes, a roving watch is no guarantee, he's (she's) supposed to rove the engineroom and dive deck and not just the salon where the charging rack was. But the odds are (I think) way way better if the boat is not intentionally left with decks 1 and 3 populated, but deck 2 entirely without a human being on that entire level.

 

[boulderjohn]

I guess my issue is assuming luck is the only thing than kept me from dying on all of the truth boats I’ve been on, getting to SB involves more luck. Have you ever been on one of their boats?

I have never done anything other than a day trip out of southern California, but I don't see how that matters for this discussion.

My wife and I and another couple are scheduled for a liveaboard tip this spring, postponed from last year because of Covd. Because of the Conception and Red Sea fires, we asked a ton of questions about safety before booking. Knowing that the Red Sea crew assured its passengers they would have a roving night watch and then made no attempt to do so, we are assuming that this crew will lie about that, too. Consequently, we will be as prepared as possible for self-rescue, and that includes booking the only two cabins on an upper deck. We will be able to evacuate directly to the sea if needed.

 

[Wookie]

Fully aware, same with the non nuke navy but the navy has a lot of excess crew for just this sort of thing, not only roving fire/security watch but to man all operational spaces.

And THAT is the crux of the matter. The Coast Guard specified a roving watch for the Conception. They didn’t require that person to be paid, they didn’t even specify duties, but they did require them to exist.

The boat company chose to ignore the regulation, and the captain didn’t raise a flag.

That’s why he’s going to jail for 10 years. The Coast Guard said that the boat needed increased manning for a specific purpose, and top down the boat company told the CG to FO.

But it’s worse. They didn’t keep an anchor watch either. They didn’t perform basic seamanship. And that is unforgivable on a passenger vessel, IMO.

 

[lexvil]

I have never done anything other than a day trip out of southern California, but I don't see how that matters for this discussion.

My wife and I and another couple are scheduled for a liveaboard tip this spring, postponed from last year because of Covd. Because of the Conception and Red Sea fires, we asked a ton of questions about safety before booking. Knowing that the Red Sea crew assured its passengers they would have a roving night watch and then made no attempt to do so, we are assuming that this crew will lie about that, too. Consequently, we will be as prepared as possible for self-rescue, and that includes booking the only two cabins on an upper deck. We will be able to evacuate directly to the sea if needed.

Reasonable, yes all boat operators are subject to suspect behavior not just truth aquatics, we all have to rely on the inspection system and our own vigilance, this is not unique to truth.

 

[scubadada]

In the nuclear navy ( I understand that this isn’t the nuclear Navy) the roving watch is not allowed tools, not are they allowed to be distracted from roving by “fixing things” because the Navy understands that by being distracted by fixing things, you are now no longer a roving watch. The roving watch has a mechanic, an electrician, and a reactor operator assigned to him that do not have to be up and roving, but must be available to fix things. The rover should be more properly called a sounding and security watch, as that is truly their job that fits the description. They look for fires, flooding, and stand by to repel boarders.

The roving watch on a dive boat should also not necessarily be the person to fix a problem. Unless it is emergent, the most qualified crew member should probably execute the repair after being notified by the watch. If the most qualified individual is the watch, another crew member should replace them for the duration of the repair.

The vast majority of safety issues on a liveaboard can be verified by me, either during the safety briefing, or independently. The roving watch is an exception. I'm an older guy, though I am an early riser, I tend to go to bed relatively early and stay in my cabin until morning. The only reason that I know the second captain was always up on @Wookie Spree, is that I had to go upstairs from the bunkroom to use the bathroom. I am in favor of a verification system to document the rounds of the roving watch, a modern version of the old watchman clock. Something like this, required for inspection, might have changed the outcome of the Conception and/or Aggressor I disaster.

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

The Coast Guard specified a roving watch for the Conception.

That watch was mandated by the USCG. When the company chose to ignore that mandate they screwed themselves and contributed to the death of 34 other people. The USCG and plaintiffs/prosecutors will no doubt allege had that mandate been followed no one would have died that night. The Captain cannot blame the company, the Captain is THE one person who should have raised a red flag and required a roving watch.

They didn’t keep an anchor watch either. They didn’t perform basic seamanship. And that is unforgivable on a passenger vessel, IMO.

This was amateur hour and the professionals knew it and chose to roll the dice.

 

[lexvil]

And THAT is the crux of the matter. The Coast Guard specified a roving watch for the Conception. They didn’t require that person to be paid, they didn’t even specify duties, but they did require them to exist.

The boat company chose to ignore the regulation, and the captain didn’t raise a flag.

That’s why he’s going to jail for 10 years. The Coast Guard said that the boat needed increased manning for a specific purpose, and top down the boat company told the CG to FO.

But it’s worse. They didn’t keep an anchor watch either. They didn’t perform basic seamanship. And that is unforgivable on a passenger vessel, IMO.

True, it’s up to the CG to enforce this for all operations allowing laxity costs lives or can.

 

[Wookie]

True, it’s up to the CG to enforce this for all operations allowing laxity costs lives or can.

At some point the CG has to trust that the operator is doing it right. Although had they asked during annual safety “how does your roving watch document rounds” would have solved a lot of problems. But as I said upthread somewhere, annual safety is a spot check of requirements. The CG would never have time to verify 100% compliance with every regulation.

 

[boulderjohn]

Reasonable, yes all boat operators are subject to suspect behavior not just truth aquatics, we all have to rely on the inspection system and our own vigilance, this is not unique to truth.

Correct, but it does not excuse Truth. If I murder someone in cold blood, the fact that other people kill people in cold blood does not exonerate me, and it does not make me a good person.