Dangerous Crossing

[MMM]

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.

well Don, some things in life are never certain. So you go with known history, probability, past experience, observation and price.


I know the op I dive with had his boat custom built from the ground up some years ago now and that he maintains it spotlessly. (I have sat on the prow, back in caleta after a trip watching the mate scrub down the entire surface with soapy water and a sc rub brush and all the cushions). This kind of care goes hand in hand with a desire for proper mechanical and other physical repair. that I have NEVER experienced any sort of mechanical difficulty on the water while on this boat would tend to bear this out. Second, I have seen and heard the captain call for permission to cross the channel. so I know it gets done. And I have seen him enforce marine park rules about knives, gloves etc so know he is a rule-abiding guy; he is most definitely not one who subscribes to the "we don't need no stinkin' rules" philosophy. Others may like the latter philosophy because it makes them feel in charge and a bit rebellious. Not me.

Finally, as Mike says, shoestring is as shoestring does. Others may feel they get better diving value for their dollars by going the cheapo route but I am not one of them. You may note that whenever I am recommending Jeremy's operation to someone on this board, I usually spend time talking about the boat in as much or greater detail than other aspects. I am so attached to his boat that when he has too many customers to fit on one boat, and is renting another, I will usually choose to go out on the Jewfish, regardless of who is DM or the skills of the divers on that boat. One exception I would make is the Sleeping Shark; I have been on it a few times and think it is nice and well maintained also. I think boats - and the comfort, safety, and convenience they afford - are a distinguishing feature among ops.

Now a newbie to Cozumel - or anywhere for that matter - does not have the advantage of having gone on hundreds and hundreds of dives with a single operator and craft. So they need to rely on the advice of people with like-minded expectations and desires. I think these are equally important questions to ask as how long they let you stay down, if the DMs are a fun bunch, what time they pick up etc etc. YMMV.

 

[WSOPFAN]

You are making assumptions.



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.

It was just posted he was gone for months,MONTHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't even dare try to tell me he did not have PLENTY of time to have them stop operating under his name. YES it is his fault get over it.

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.

The point is.......the article did not state at all that we found proper paperwork and the boat was registered properly. The name on the side of that boat is SCUBA MAU......if it was not his boat it is still his responsibility to ensure that boat is registered properly BEFORE putting HIS customers on it PERIOD.

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.

Who the heck cares who or how it was modified......the point is that boat had the name SCUBA MAU on it and it had a glass bottom and it tried to cross that channel. He knew it had that bottom and IMO sent his customers into a very dangerous situation PERIOD.

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.

As a matter of fact I did say it is questionable if that is required or not. Actually IMO they intentionally did not notify the port Captain because the very next statement would have been you are gonna what?

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.

Would you be saying the same thing if we were talking about 9 missing people right now? Quit trying to blame anyone and everyone but Mau.......the boat had SCUBA MAU all over it and the customers were diving a boat run by......guess who......SCUBA MAU........

 

[cvchief]

It was just posted he was gone for months,MONTHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't even dare try to tell me he did not have PLENTY of time to have them stop operating under his name. YES it is his fault get over it.

1. I have not been nor do I plan to be though a divorace, but I have plenty of experience with those who have in the States. Months ain't enough if it is ugly.
2. I bought a place in MX and it took a YEAR to get all the paperwork FINALLY complete. I would guess a divorace or other legal action would take forever too.

So again, not fact. Your opinion.

The point is.......the article did not state at all that we found proper paperwork and the boat was registered properly. The name on the side of that boat is SCUBA MAU......if it was not his boat it is still his responsibility to ensure that boat is registered properly BEFORE putting HIS customers on it PERIOD.

Wanting everything to be black and white does not make it so. Maybe Mau was a part of the registration issue or maybe he wasn't. Perhaps the investigation will reveal that. I rent a car in Mexico and have taken friends for a ride. Am I wrong for not insisting the rental agency give me all the documents that prove they registered the car properly and bought the insurance? Don't I sign a contract with them where they insure that all that stuff is done. If it isnt, I assume the they are responsible for it. Does it apply to boats? I dunno. Do you?

Who the heck cares who or how it was modified......the point is that boat had the name SCUBA MAU on it and it had a glass bottom and it tried to cross that channel. He knew it had that bottom and IMO sent his customers into a very dangerous situation PERIOD.

You know what he knew? You would be the first on here to state they knew what Mau knew about the boat. Again, not yet black and white. If I rented a boat from a boat repair place and they guy told me, hey this boat hit a rock and had a hole in the hull, but it is all good as new now, what should I do? Take it to another boat yard and get them to sand it down and check it and then fix it again?

Maybe he did know. Maybe he even did that covering of the glass bottom himself. I don't know. Do you?

As a matter of fact I did say it is questionable if that is required or not. Actually IMO they intentionally did not notify the port Captain because the very next statement would have been you are gonna what?

Why would he? MMM states the Jewfish makes the crossing. Remember too the registration comes back to a larger 2 engine craft, so calling in the crossing should not have been a problem. Heck I agree, knowing as little as I do, that calling in the crossing SOUNDS like a good idea.

Would you be saying the same thing if we were talking about 9 missing people right now? Quit trying to blame anyone and everyone but Mau.......the boat had SCUBA MAU all over it and the customers were diving a boat run by......guess who......SCUBA MAU........

Yes, I would be saying that. It isn't about the harm done, it is about the facts and what is proven and not proven. Judging base on the harm is sensationalism. If people die or not will not change the negligence.

 

[danvolker]

I think one of the problems of getting tens of thousands of people who were previously sedentary non-adventurers, to become divers----is that they don't have the "common sense" of a lifetime adventurer, in spotting danger.
Some people spot it easily, and instantly make solutions. Others are oblivious until it is too late.

I don't see a long time adventurer type getting into a glass bottom boat and allowing themselves to be taken into a crazy scenario like this....unless they were actually crazy enough to think that it might be fun to swim back to shore--in which case, they would have their own solutions with them at all times.

We don't need to make a Rule about this, any more than we need the government to make it a law that coffee shops can't serve coffee so hot that it could "burn" you.

As far as being on a normal diveboat in rougher than expected seas, I'd have my wetsuit on, with mask, fins and snorkel in hand the moment things began to look beyond the design of the boat.
If it was a diveboat going to some 20 mile offshore area, or other site too far for a swim back to shore (unlike the safety of 1 mile to 3 mile out sites) , then even in fair weather, I and my buddies would have the Halcyon LifeRaft or surfmats with us in mc storage pouch of backplate ( as VDG man joked about). Since money is an object for most divers, I'd say buy your own raft, before you by the radio/gps...If you are that far out, sitting on the raft for 8 hours instead of 4 hours, is better than being in the water for 3 hours with no floatation or thermal protection. The Halcyon Life raft is way cool for this, but sadly, they don't make them any more, so to get one, you'd have to find somebody willing to sell theirs. I normally avoid the sites I can't swim back from these days ( places more than 5 miles out with Gulfstream pushing you out as well--as like North of Jupiter)...But if I decide to visit Stuart of Fort Pierce deep sites again, that raft will be with me

 

[WSOPFAN]

From today's news.......that boat was not allowed in the marine park.

Google Translate

COZUMEL, February 6. - The sunken vessel named "Living Underwater" was not allowed to surf on the coast of the Marine Park, said Ricardo Gomez Lozano, director of the park, and believes that this boat, when background glass should not be allowed to sail the open sea, only in the harbor, "and investigate whether the license belongs to another licensee, and if they acted outside the law, you could lose your license."The head of the Marine Park began by saying that "there are boats that try to operate with permits and registrations of other boats, and the guards are instructed not to let any Marine Park without permission, this was one of those boats," he said.
Then said the sunken boat "because it is a glass bottom boat ... we should not permit cabotage, ie it need not be going to navigate between Cozumel to Playa del Carmen, because they usually fund craft glass, by their nature, have permission from the Harbor Master to sail only in the harbor of Cozumel. "
He admits that "there are irregularities, so we will be working with the Port Authority, for the next renewal process vessels wishing to enter the National Park not only is a process in which we received a document signed by Harbor Master and with that we give well served, that's how it's the law, because we have no obligation to review what captaincy issues. However, seeing these irregularities have existed, we will begin to review each of these vessels, and those that are not operating and are unable to do so does not have to give Captain authorizations let alone their permits us renovarles Marine Park entrance ":
He says the "Living Underwater", original is allowed to enter the Marine Park, permission to have "is the name of Max" (Maximilian Zuniga), "who never had any problems with us, only that the problem comes when they start to sublet to a third party authorization to operate, which is against the law because we give authorization to a person because he is who has the permits and authorizations, including insurance, medical expenses or damages to third parties will respond to any situation; however, the lease or sub-let is when situations occur as we are seeing. "
He says that by law it can be sublet permits, but only if it meets certain guidelines, "in fact there are many vessels that permit holder's own, he leased these boats, that's why we ask who is a contract between the vessel and who is renting, to create a link between the formal and legal, so that both parties be responsible for any situation or event to happen, but lease it without authorization, or approval of the Marine Park, or the Captain Port, is when problems arise that can cause withdraws the permit. "
The event with the "Living Underwater" occurred outside the jurisdiction of the Marine Park, and we have no attribution, but if Captain reviews the documents and we established that this boat is taking powers that do not belong and have duplicate registrations or name of another boat, that's enough for us to withdraw their permission. Captaincy only require that it says, "this boat committed these offenses and request that they not be renewed ', only in this way we will act even if the dealer does not show under what conditions leased the permit, then take matters into , and could be revoked, "he concluded.

I wonder where the boat was operating on Jan 6 in that video I posted yesterday? In the marine park.....and how long has that boat been running in the marine park without a permit? Since Dec15? It also says they would never have let a glass bottom boat cross the channel and IMO owner/dive shop and captain all knew that and did it anyway. Gee what a surprise........

 

[cvchief]

I wonder where the boat was operating on Jan 6 in that video I posted yesterday? In the marine park.....and how long has that boat been running in the marine park without a permit? Since Dec15? It also says they would never have let a glass bottom boat cross the channel and IMO owner/dive shop and captain all knew that and did it anyway. Gee what a surprise........

Did we not figure out pages ago that the boat that sunk was using the name and permit of a decommissioned boat? I think someone said the old boat, the first 'sinky' one, was pulled out last summer sometime? So, it would seem likely sometime after that the current boat must have taken over the name and permits. Not hearing anything new....

 

[WSOPFAN]

Actually the previous news articles only questioned the paperwork this article confirms it......unless of course you are of the belief that every single thing that paper writes are lies. It also clears up the issue of the legality of operating under another person's permit which is allowed if you do the proper paperwork and in this case, it was not done and the article confirm's that. If I am reading this correctly though you may have been right earlier. If the papers were not filed correctly then the article says the permit holder/boat owner is responsible for everything. In other words Mau would not be responsible for any OFFICIAL liability, however, I think his customers might think otherwise. If you tell your customers it's your boat and put your name on it and you don't have the papers done legally isn't that kinda like fraud? I doubt he told them it had a glass bottom and I doubt he told them he did not have the paperwork done legally. Maybe it's just me but I would absolutely label this as shady business practices period. In any case whatever person paid for that permit just lost their money because the permit is revoked.

 

[DiverG]

Actually the previous news articles only questioned the paperwork this article confirms it......unless of course you are of the belief that every single thing that paper writes are lies. It also clears up the issue of the legality of operating under another person's permit which is allowed if you do the proper paperwork and in this case, it was not done and the article confirm's that. If I am reading this correctly though you may have been right earlier. If the papers were not filed correctly then the article says the permit holder/boat owner is responsible for everything. In other words Mau would not be responsible for any OFFICIAL liability, however, I think his customers might think otherwise. If you tell your customers it's your boat and put your name on it and you don't have the papers done legally isn't that kinda like fraud? I doubt he told them it had a glass bottom and I doubt he told them he did not have the paperwork done legally. Maybe it's just me but I would absolutely label this as shady business practices period. In any case whatever person paid for that permit just lost their money because the permit is revoked.

Instead of relying on poorly translated articles why don't you get a good translation first. You do know that in many instances free translations services butcher an article. It could have a totally different reading when translated properly. I do not know if that would be the case in this instance, but I do know not to trust free translation services.

 

[WSOPFAN]

Instead of relying on poorly translated articles why don't you get a good translation first. You do know that in many instances free translations services butcher an article. It could have a totally different reading when translated properly. I do not know if that would be the case in this instance, but I do know not to trust free translation services.

Oh yea I forgot, based on recent discussion I should state the following disclaimer always:
1) Por Esto always lies is poorly translated and should not be trusted at all especially if it says Scuba Mau.
2) Always remember, it is never Scuba Mau's fault for anything that ever happens. It is always somebody else's fault.
3) There are no shady dive shops operating on Cozumel and all are perfectly safe, especially Scuba Mau.:shocked2:

 

[ScubaSteve]

......unless of course you are of the belief that every single thing that paper writes are lies......

I am personally of the opinion that nothing a paper writes can be taken as gospel as you seem to think. It is not all necessarily lies but it is also not all necessarily the whole truth.