Legal & other issues from SG Mishap

[J.R.]

Hummm... just as a point of curiosity... does anybody know if Congress actually released the ship from the naval roles?

"Navy custody of its wrecks is based on the property clause of the U.S. Constitution and international maritime law and it is consistent with Articles 95 and 96 of the Law of the Sea Convention. These laws establish that right, title, or ownership of federal property is not lost to the government due to the passage of time. Only by congressional action can ship and aircraft wrecks be declared abandoned."

 

[CBulla]

If divers want to explore areas of a wreck that are designated as dangerous and out of bounds they do so at their own risk. Because of the nature of a wreck or a ski run it is impossible to prevent this behavior. I think it is the responsibility of the people who sink the wreck or manage it to create areas for safer swim throughs with regular inspection and maintenance. Our energies should be spent protecting and informing divers who dive responsibly.

I don't think those who sink the wreck are in the business of setting it up for divers to play in like a jungle gym. It's being put down primarily as habitat for sea life which in turn attracts non-sea life to visit it as well. When they prep it to be scuttled as a reef, as much stuff as possible is removed to make it 'clean'. After its sunk, a vessel (which has been in a state of deterioration its entire life) begins to rapidly decay. Of course, there is the new marine life taking command of the vessel as well. Visually it can be inspected by divers regularly on the exterior. Maintenance wise, they don't even have to put out tie up buoys, but thats a lot safer to the reef than an anchor.

How do you believe it should be maintained.

 

[Thalassamania]

that's a new one to me. do you mean OSHA?

if so, OSHA only applies to safety in the workplace. these guys weren't employed by anyone to go into the Grove.

What's "DOSHA" If it's OSHA, they have no interest.

 

[Thalassamania]

Hummm... just as a point of curiosity... does anybody know if Congress actually released the ship from the naval roles?

"Navy custody of its wrecks is based on the property clause of the U.S. Constitution and international maritime law and it is consistent with Articles 95 and 96 of the Law of the Sea Convention. These laws establish that right, title, or ownership of federal property is not lost to the government due to the passage of time. Only by congressional action can ship and aircraft wrecks be declared abandoned."

I believe that title was transfered prior to it being a "wreck."

 

[Rick Murchison]

Hummm... just as a point of curiosity... does anybody know if Congress actually released the ship from the naval roles?

"Navy custody of its wrecks is based on the property clause of the U.S. Constitution and international maritime law and it is consistent with Articles 95 and 96 of the Law of the Sea Convention. These laws establish that right, title, or ownership of federal property is not lost to the government due to the passage of time. Only by congressional action can ship and aircraft wrecks be declared abandoned."

The ship was stricken from the Navy list and transferred.
Rick

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Just to clarify my perspective, since my name has become attached to this thread's origin

1) it is not possible to assign blame or liability in a forum like this in any specific case, such as this one, because of lack of detailed, reliable first hand knowledge...comments regarding blame and liability should be considered hypothetical and not pertaining to a particular accidnent, especially a recent one when mis info can be rampant

2) clustering of accidents warrants more investigation, but is often a statistical quirk that means nothing... the SG apparently has seen such a cluster, but there is no data supporting any changes to the site now

3) in general, it behooves the dive community to shield dive operators from liability...otherwise, their insurance rates will rise and either cost US more or even cause some operators to close

4) I personally don't want to see more regulation... I merely point out that media glare can invite jughead politicians to get involved whether we like it or not... because one intern, sleep-deprived, made one medication error in New York and the press got wind of it, state and federal laws were enacted to limit the number of hours a medical trainee can work (which has hampered the efficacy of training, not helped it)... this was an observation, not my personal belief that more nanny laws are needed

 

[Boatlawyer]

C-

That's one of my points about the "disneyfication" of these wrecks. One of the selling points of funding the SG was as a "tourist attraction" and one of the things that had to be proved to authorities before sinking was diver safety. Another stated purpose was to specifically draw divers AWAY from natural reefs in an effort to prevent further damage to them.

So, I disagree that the primary purpose was to attract marine life. It is probably more accurate to say that the primary purpose was to attract divers and the way to do that was to attract marine life.

 

[Boatlawyer]

Well, I would love to know what legislators are saying about it this week with pending funding for more artificial reefs. Following is an excerpt from the DEMA e-mail I received yesterday:

Florida House and Senate committees are now considering creation of a trust to provide state matching funds for coastal communities to sink large ex-military ships as artificial reefs. If you are a fan of wreck diving please contact the legislators listed below by phone or email NOW to express your support for this legislation. Click on the links below to view each bill.

Your support is CRUCIAL. When passed we will all have more great shipwrecks to dive in Florida. This is good for the environment and good for diving. All state legislators in Florida can help. The first of several committees to hear the legislation meet this week and are listed below. Please contact them and voice your support NOW!

ETA: House Bill 759 will be discussed tomorrow. I have e-mail the sponsoring representative to ask whether it will be broadcast.

 

[Hemlon]

Disclaimer: I have only read the first 3-4 pages of this thread so if someone HAS come to shakeybrainsurgeon's defense, I apologize in advance for any redundancy.

He's right in asking the question he asked. Unfortunately, his question was GROSSLY misinterpreted.

As a critical care RN, I can understand his question.

It's called INFORMED consent. In order for it to be informed, the person must have some information on which they base their decision.

Yes, it's all about risk and rewards. But wouldn't it be necessary to know that a particular dive site carries a 5x or 25x increased risk or death than similar sites?

Then if the diver chooses to dive it, he truly IS informed.

 

[J.R.]

I don't think those who sink the wreck are in the business of setting it up for divers to play in like a jungle gym. It's being put down primarily as habitat for sea life which in turn attracts non-sea life to visit it as well.

ACTUALLY... (jeez'... I'm gonna' hate myself for this...), I was watching a show on the prep of the Oriskany. Just before it was getting ready to be towed to sea they had a guy go through the ship and mark (with *green* spray paint) all of the wiring and other 'entanglement' elemnts that might pose an endangerment to divers. Those entanglements so marked were required to be removed before the vessel was sunk. The program specificially identified this activity and its purpose...

So it does seem that some thought is given to diver safety... this *would* tend to indicate intent or at least acknowledgement of diver interaction and anticipaton of obvious hazards.

... I have to go floss my brain now...

(Edited)