NTSB CONCEPTION HEARING - THIS TUESDAY @ 10AM

[Ken Kurtis]

Hopefully all liveaboards of any size realize they need to abide by the rule, and common sense, of having a night watchman awake.

I agree with you but just a point of clarification. Everything they're talking about applies to "small commercial passenger vessels with overnight accommodations." This has much wider implications than just the diving industry. They have also repeatedly gone out of their way to use that terminology to be clear that if you're a Florida-style boat with no bunks running day trips, the requirement of a roving patrol does not apply. Because they key thing to remember is that you're required to have a roving patrol ANYTIME passengers are on board, not just at night. So this applies to daytime as well.

 

[Ken Kurtis]

IIt's because crossing the 12 passenger line changes the entire regulatory regime.

@Wookie can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the magic number is 6 (as in 6-pack), not 12. Above 6, you become an "inspected vessel" and the regs are significantly different.

 

[seeker242]

can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the magic number is 6 (as in 6-pack), not 12. Above 6, you become an "inspected vessel" and the regs are significantly different.

6 and 12 are both magic numbers, depending on the tonnage of the vessel. 100 Gross Tons (GT) or more, 12 is the magic number, under 100 GT, 6 is the number. "Uninspected Passenger Vessel" can carry more than 6 just as long as the vessel is not under 100 GT.

Although, the magic number for dive boats is usually 6, as most of them are not over 100 GT. But vessels like mega yachts, mostly all over 100GT, most all of them are limited to 12 passengers.

 

[BlueTrin]

.

 

[nolatom]

I felt safe on Frank's / "Wookies's" boat (Melanie too), on a dozen or so Flower Gardens trips, and once or twice as Mate, and on a mooring-drilling trip at Stetson Bank.
Aluminum hull. Triple-screw. Two-deck boat with a slightly raised wheelhouse.

No CCTV back then, but the wheelhouse is basically same deck as salon/galley. And that layout is the main thing that kept your attention focused on that deck. "Your" meant the mate or second Captain who had the "back" watch, 1800-0600. You swivel around from the helm chair and you're seeing much of the salon.

Yup, 30-odd berths below the galley, with staircase and floor hatch exits. As a passenger, I would count the number of steps to each, and how many door openings to get there, in case I ever had to do it by feel only. When underway on the night trip out to the Banks, I didn't necessarily "rove" much, but most of the night I had some company from folks using the head or getting coffee, or just nightowls. When moored at the Sanctuaries way offshore, yes I "roved" periodically, in part to keep me awake.. And also to use the head or get coffee. That 0400-0600 period is for many watchstanders (and daytime people generally) a challenge you have to meet, meaning more walking around, going down the cabin ladder, dive deck, and (obviously) the salon, and up to the "aluminum beach" sun deck to stargaze a little.

The Cali boats with that upper deck having all the crew bunks and the wheelhouse, might for me be a temptation to "just lie down for a minute", which would be a definite no-no No.

It's a tragedy. It will change the industry, which is good where needed. It may make offshore diving more expensive, which may be inevitable.

 

[Shasta_man]

I'm curious how such changes would make it economically infeasible to run a dive boat.

I'll admit ignorance of all the boat designs and it's not my profit margins I'm talking about but if you have a hatch in place but need to make it more accessible, I would think that means removing some bunks. But that would be what 3 bunks, so 3 less people?

So you reduce the passengers on this boat to ~30. You could not spread the cost increase across all the passengers to make it relatively modest?

Factoring in the ease of just traveling to the coast to go, are prices that close to making it worth traveling a considerable distance to go somewhere else? Or is the TAM not big enough to support that?

Since they're isn't a plethora of boats, perhaps that market is small but still seems marketable?

 

[boulderjohn]

I'll admit ignorance of all the boat designs and it's not my profit margins I'm talking about but if you have a hatch in place but need to make it more accessible, I would think that means removing some bunks. But that would be what 3 bunks, so 3 less people?

So you reduce the passengers on this boat to ~30. You could not spread the cost increase across all the passengers to make it relatively modest?

I will add my ignorance to this discussion. You only lose 3 passengers if the boat is fully booked.

EDIT: I just read that the Conception had a listed capacity of 99 passengers. So, at least on the fatal trip, there would have been no financial loss for removing 3 bunks.

 

[Brett Hatch]

NTSB has produced a 6-page summary of their findings:
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2020-DCA19MM047-BMG-abstract.pdf

It contains a summary of the events of that evening, a summary of the safety issues, the 18 "Findings" mentioned upthread, as well as their 9 recommendations to the US Coast Guard (stricter regulations re: interconnected smoke detectors, egress to multiple spaces, and egress obstructions), and 1 recommendation to Truth Aquatics: to "Implement a safety management system for your fleet to improve safety practicesand minimize risk."

Interestingly, these recommendations do not cover the ignition sources themselves, nor the combustibility of materials such as seating. I agree with Ken that there is much to be said there for this case and others like it, but the NTSB has no recommendations on those matters at this time.

Not being a mariner, I have never heard of a Safety Management System (SMS). From the recording, it seems to basically be a way to log the roving patrol's movements throughout the boat over the course of the night. Having a log will empower the USCG to enforce this law, which today is essentially unenforcible. Do I have that right, or does an SMS refer to something else? Hopefully a proper mariner can chime in here.

 

[tursiops]

Conception had a listed capacity of 99 passengers

That was not for an overnight trip.

 

[boulderjohn]

That was not for an overnight trip.

Ooops!

So I see that the sleeping capacity was 46, so the 3 bunks making the hatch a difficult exit were not needed on the fatal trip. How often were more than 43 people on overnight trips?